Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSES 1, 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 64.)

11.6 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to add:
Provided that in every such case the military prisoner, if he so desires, shall be entitled to serve his sentence in this country if he has been enlisted in this country.
As far as I can gather, this Bill alters the Army Act, which allows soldiers sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more to serve that sentence in this country. I feel that we ought to have had an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of any alterations which the Bill proposes to make in existing legislation. One of the drawbacks of not having a Second Reading debate is that one does not know what alterations are being made, and has to go through the Bill to try to find them out. The Army Act says that a soldier sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or over can be brought borne to serve that sentence in this country, but now, apparently, the powers-that-be have decided that they have the right to prescribe in what Dominion or Colony, or India, he is to serve that sentence. We think that a man serving in India who is sentenced to three or four or five years' imprisonment should at the end of 12 months be brought home and serve his sentence here, but the Government now say that if they think fit the whole term is to be served in India. A sentence of five years is severe punishment in the ordinary way, but for a British subject have to serve that term in India with its special climatic conditions, is an added punishment, and may border on torture.
Therefore, I propose that a soldier who joined the Army in this country shall, if "sentenced abroad, be allowed to serve his sentence in this country. It may be that the Minister will meet that claim with the
rejoinder that sometimes only short sentences are imposed, and that in such cases it would not be practicable to bring a man home. If that be the case, let me make the condition apply to sentences of not less than 12 months. In this country even murderers have a right to receive visits from their friends, but, if a soldier were left to serve a long sentence in India—it may be a life sentence—he might never have an opportunity of seeing his relations, and, therefore, he would be in a worse position than any civil prisoner.

11.11 a.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I can only deal with the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, but I should mention that there is a proviso to Section 64 of the Army Act which has not been interfered with at all by the Amendment which is being proposed by the Bill. That proviso says that if the term of his sentence exceeds 12 months a soldier shall be transferred as soon as practicable to a prison or detention barracks in the United Kingdom, with certain exceptions, and, therefore, in the main, the case of any soldier with a long sentence is already met. We have only altered something which comes in before the proviso, and, therefore, this Amendment is dealing with short sentences as well as long sentences. The hon. Member said that I should probably meet his argument by referring to short sentences. Of course I must meet him with a reference to short sentences, because, as he admits, it would be absurd for a soldier serving in, say, Singapore, who receives a sentence of 14 days' detention to be brought home to serve that sentence—a five weeks' journey home and a five weeks' journey back. That would be the effect of his Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me what is the change that is being made by the Bill? I know that the Army Act specifies a sentence of 12 months, but now the authorities are taking to themselves the power to exercise discretion in the matter.

Mr. HACKING: I do not know whether I am entitled to discuss the whole of the Clause on this Amendment, but, if I am, I will gladly do so. The new Clause in the Bill states that so much of Sub-section (4) shall be amended as precedes the proviso, so the proviso remains exactly as it is now, and surely that meets the point
which the hon. Member has had in mind. He desires that those who have to serve long sentences shall be brought home, and I can assure him that, generally speaking, and save for the few exceptions which are contained in Section 64, which are very unimportant and very unlikely to arise, men sentenced to long terms of imprisonment will be brought home. But his Amendment covers both the short sentence and the long sentence, and it would be absurd to bring a man home from the Far East to serve 14 days in this country. As far as long sentences are concerned, the case is met by the proviso.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. LAWSON: As this Clause to amend a section of the Army Act, deals with a point of the same nature as that raised by the hon. Member's Amendment, I think it would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman could explain why that Section is to be altered. When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I wondered at what point it would be suggested that the man concerned should be brought home. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has made that point clear. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, under the Army Act, if the term of sentence exceeds 12 months, the soldier must be transferred as soon as practicable to a prison in the United Kingdom. That means that there is a 12 months' limit. In what respect are the Government altering that Section? Is this only a minor Amendment? It would be very useful if the right hon. Gentleman explained what is the particular point. It may be necessary to wait until we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" before we can deal with it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think it would probably meet the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with it now. Obviously, the explanation of the Government's attitude will depend upon the alteration which is proposed in the Army Act, and it is desirable that the point should be put now, on the understanding that it is not debated at a later stage.

Mr. HACKING: I am very much obliged to you, Captain Bourne, for your ruling. We may get this matter perfectly straight now, so that we may know
exactly where we are. The change which we are making in the Army Act, by Clause 4 of the Bill, is twofold in character. In the first place, it will enable us to send the soldier sentenced to a term exceeding 12 months in the Dominions or in a foreign country, to the United Kingdom, as soon as practicable, which is exactly what hon. Members desire. The present intention of the Army Act is not quite clear. In point of fact—I think I am giving no secret away—there has been a little doubt about the exact interpretation of the Section. In the past we have sent soldiers home to this country to serve long sentences, but there has been just a little doubt as to whether we have been doing it in accordance with the law. The proposed Amendment of the Act will make it perfectly clear that we can do it. It is the desire of the hon. Members who put down the Amendment under discussion that that should be done, that soldiers should be sent here if their sentence is a long one. That obviously is for the soldier's benefit.
The second effect of the proposed amendment of the Act is to enable a soldier sentenced in Palestine or in Cyprus, which are colonies in the meaning of the Act, to undergo in Egypt a sentence of under twelve months. At the present moment there is a little doubt about that. The amendment of the Act would make it possible for the soldier serving in one of our colonies, and sentenced in one of those two colonies, to serve his punishment in Egypt, which is not a colony or a Dominion, but is termed a foreign country. There are no military prisons or detention barracks in Palestine or Cyprus, and prisoners otherwise would have to be sent either to the United Kingdom or to Malta for short sentences. Troops in Palestine and in Cyprus are under the administration of the General Officer Commanding Troops in Egypt. Therefore, it would be quite appropriate that they should serve their sentences in what is termed a foreign country by law, and it is again for the soldier's convenience that he should not be sent to Malta or to a long distance to serve a short sentence. It is also in the interests of economy. Those are the sole reasons for the amendment to Section 64 of the Army Act.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: The proposed amendment of the Act carries a great deal farther than Cyprus or Palestine. The Act, if amended as suggested by the Government, will mean that a British soldier may have to serve his sentence in any country in the world, if he is sentenced in a foreign country. There is no limitation as to mandated territory, and, if a British soldier is serving in any part of the world, he may be compelled, if the amendment proposed in the Bill be accepted by the Committee, to serve a sentence, for any offence which he may commit, in a foreign country. Take, for instance, a man who was in the—

Mr. HACKING: This is for short sentences only. Sentences of 12 months and over are covered by the proviso to Section 64 in the Army Act.

Mr. MAXTON: In the Act, as I read it, I see no provision which allows a British soldier to be imprisoned in a foreign country. This amendment would and does make that provision. The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable explanation that it is for places like Palestine. I was citing a case such as that of the men who were in the British Army in the Saar, which is a foreign country. One of those men commits a serious offence, and he is convicted there; under the Amendment proposed in the Bill he may be imprisoned in a Saar prison or a German, French or Belgian prison. The terms of the clause are very wide. I see nothing in the Act which gave that power before.

11.21 a.m.

Mr. HACKING: I am very sorry that the Hon. Member comes to the House and puts down an amendment without reading the Act. He says that he finds nothing in the existing Act which gives power to make a soldier serve a sentence in a foreign country if the sentence has been imposed in a foreign country. May I direct the hon. Member's attention to Section 64 (3), which is as follows:
A military prisoner or soldier under sentence of detention who was sentenced in a foreign country shall undergo his sentence either in that foreign country, or in any foreign country.
The power was there before. Our proposal simply makes it clear that anybody sentenced in a colony can serve his sentence in a foreign country; that is the
only difference it makes. Any soldier, having been sentenced in a foreign country, can now, under the existing Act, serve that sentence in the foreign country.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has really met the point. The Clause which we are discussing in the Bill reads:
A military prisoner or soldier under sentence of detention shall… if he was sentenced in a foreign country, undergo his sentence either in that country or in any other foreign country… or in the United Kingdom, or in such other place as may be prescribed.
That may be a foreign country. If the real point is that the soldier may be sent to Egypt, why not say so? This country may be in alliance with another country, Russia, Germany, China or Japan, and, if this power is put into the Act, the soldier may have to serve his sentence in one of those foreign countries. I agree that the case which has been put in regard to Egypt is one thing, but the Clause would allow the handing over of a British soldier to serve a sentence in a foreign country.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the two provisions together he will see that they state that, unless the soldier can be transferred from the foreign country in which he may be serving and in which he committed his crime, to another foreign country, he will have to finish his sentence in that country. The Clause in the Bill needs re-drafting, because it is not in the same terms as that which is in the Act.

11.25 a.m.

Major Sir SAMUEL HARVEY: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has asked that specific mention should be made of any particular country—Egypt, for instance—which may be contemplated; but surely, if a soldier is sentenced in a particular country with which this country may have an alliance, it is desirable—

Mr. ATTLEE: This is not a case in which a soldier is sentenced in a foreign country in a time of war; it is a case in which he may be sentenced in a Dominion or Colony, and, under this amendment of the Army Act, although he may be sentenced, say, in Canada or India or a British Colony,
there is power to make him serve his sentence in a foreign country.

Sir S. HARVEY: He may have to serve his sentence in a foreign country, but surely it is not desirable to mention a particular country—say Egypt—in any legislation. Similar cases may occur in which soldiers may be sentenced in another foreign country, and it might be desirable that the sentence should be served, say, in Russia, or any other place, according to the course of events. I cannot see that any hardship is involved. It is simply a question of the desirability of it being allowed, and I think the intention is perfectly clear.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not intend to press this Amendment, for I am not altogether satisfied with its wording. It is, however, no use the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite saying that it is desirable to do this or that. In these matters of soldiers' sentences it is much more desirable to be specific than in the ease of the civilian population, because, while in the case of the civilian population the matter can always be adjusted through a Member of Parliament or some other person, in the case of a soldier it is much harder to adjust anything that may appear to be wrong. We should have liked the Minister to make much more clear in the Act itself the definitions which he applied in his speech, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Bill is introduced again 12 months hence, to try to make the Act clearer according to the conception he has stated. As I have said, I do not wish to press the Amendment, but will ask the Committee's permission to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.29 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not want to reopen this question, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, before the Act is brought into force, to add words specifying that the place in which the sentence is to be served shall be a place which is under the control of a British officer, or whatever may be the proper form. The provision is very wide at present. I agree that we do not want to put Egypt in, but
as it stands it is left very wide, and the sentence might have to be served in places where there is absolutely no control by anyone connected with this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter again between now and Report.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. HACKING: I am afraid I cannot make any promise on that question at this moment, but it is very unlikely that the difficulty which the hon. Member foresees will take place. As the Committee know, we have to get this Bill through, and cannot very well put down amendments now; but I will promise that the matter shall be considered before the Bill is introduced next year, and, if there is found to be any difficulty, and if it is possible then to put in an amendment such as the hon. Member suggests, it will be done. I cannot, however, promise to amend the Bill to-day.

Mr. ATTLEE: I cannot accept for a moment the position that the House of Commons is not allowed to make amendments because the Government are in a hurry. They have the control of Government business, and should give the House the necessary time. Surely the House is not to be denied the right to take a Bill or reject it because the Government are in a hurry.

Mr. HACKING: There is not so much hurry as to prevent full discussion, and there has been already, and will be, full discussion of this Bill to-day. We are not in any way attempting to curb discussion. We want a full discussion on the Bill, and we want to get it through on its merits.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to be met in each case with the fact that the Bill has to be got through quickly and without any consideration? Cannot the matter be dealt with in another place? I know the difficulties of the Report stage, and of throwing the matter open to discussion again, but I think the right hon. Gentleman might try to see if it cannot be done in another place.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The following proposed new Clauses stood upon the Order Paper:

Amendment of Army Act, Section 76.
The following proviso shall be added at the end of section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):—
Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian if such request is made before the boy attains the age of eighteen and it is shown that the boy enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian."—[Mr. Lawson.]

Amendment of Army Act, Section 80 (1).
The following words shall be added at the end of sub-section (1) of section eighty of the Army Act, "and produce his birth certificate."—[Mr. Tinker.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to move the Clause which stands in his name, I would point out that the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) seems to me to cover the same point, and I would suggest that we take the discussion of these two Clauses together, the hon. Members having the right to divide on them separately should they wish to do so.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Amendment of Army Act, s. 76.)

"The following proviso shall be added at the end of section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):—
Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian if such request is made before the boy attains the age of eighteen and it is shown that the boy enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian."—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will be aware that this Clause has been moved on several occasions and debated at considerable length. It seems to me that it is time the War Office gave very serious consideration to this proposal. As hon. Members will be aware, the age of the soldier for enlistment is 18, and in the latter part of Section 76 of the Army Act that is emphasised by reference to special
cases where boys are enlisted under the age of 18. I do not think it is questioned at all that the legal age is 18. It is well known, however, that there is quite a number of boys of an adventurous type who, sometimes because they are temporarily out of work, sometimes because there is trouble at home, or because of various whims that seize boys, enlist before they are 18—sometimes indeed before they are 17 years of age. I do not think that there is any doubt as far as the War Office are concerned, that if a boy enlists under 17 years of age, apart from special categories, he is released as a rule. That is the practice. I think that I am right in saying that, almost without exception, boys who enlist under 17 years of age are released, but the War Office take a firm stand in the case of boys who enlist between the ages of 17 and 18. Last year I pointed out that, speaking as a layman, I thought that the legality of the War Office in keeping a boy under the age of 18 years in the Army was very doubtful indeed. I said then, and I repeat it now, that the War Office rely on the fact that the parents are usually too poor to go into court and challenge the legality of holding such a boy. The fact is that they do hold boys between 17 and 18 years of age. It is true that boys often give a wrong age. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has a new Clause on the Paper which you, Captain Bourne, have suggested might be discussed in connection with the present proposed Clause, and therefore I take it that I shall be in order in referring to it. If a boy enlists between 17 and 18 years of age, it does not make any difference even though he gives a false age; he is regarded as having attained the age when he is legally entitled to join the. Army, apart from special categories.
I am not going to plead particular cases, but I think that every Member of this House from time to time must have eases sent on to him from parents pleading that a boy has gone off and enlisted. It may be that the boy himself is not particularly anxious to be released, but that is not the question. His parents are legally responsible for him until he is 18 years of age at least. They seek his release, and the War Office refuse it. In almost every case, when parents ask for a boy's release, the point is put that he has arrived at an age when he has become of some help to the family and has begun
to make a contribution. Very often there are younger members of the family, and the parents may have had a struggle to bring up their children. They are getting older, and sometimes there is unemployment so far as the father is concerned. The boy is taken away just at a time when he might be useful and of help to his parents, and naturally they expect to have him released. I know the War Office sometimes say that they take into consideration sympathetically the special conditions of the family. That may be so in theory, but in practice it does not work out, because almost invariably the War Office hold on to the boy who is between 17 and 18 years of age.
I would ask the representative of the War Office if this thing is worth while? The number of youths who enlist at this age is comparatively small and is fractional in proportion to the whole of the enlistments in a year. It is very questionable indeed whether on the whole it is worth the trouble to keep these boys, in view of the reflections that must be made by parents and by people generally in the country on the attitude of the War Office in keeping boys under 18 years of age. I know that the right hon. Gentleman who is this year representing the War Office follows the practice of previous years, and will shake a minatory finger at those boys and say that when they enlist they tell lies and so on, and that now they will be subject to this, that and the other. We will allow him to do that if he will only accept this new Clause. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many boys enlisted under 18 years of age during the past year and how many between 17 and 18 years of age. I think that if he does so the figures will show to the Committee that it is scarcely worth while to keep these boys. My hon. Friend here suggests that, along with the figures of enlistment, we might be given the figures of the numbers of releases, particularly of boys between 17 and 18 years of age. To be exact, we ought to have the figures of those released between 17 and 18 years, because I think that I am right in saying that boys under 17 are invariably automatically released. I hope that we are to have a satisfactory answer this year upon this matter, so that the difficulty may be removed once and for all. It is really not worth while for the War Office
to continue to keep these boys, and therefore I have moved the Clause which stands in my name.

11.43 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I am glad, Captain Bourne, that you have suggested that this Clause and the one standing in my name should be discussed together. We were accused of shirking the issue on the last occasion and asked why we did not bring something definite before the Committee to deal with the question. The proposition contained in the Clause of my hon. Friend has been put before the Committee many times and the same argument has been made as that which has been advanced by my hon. Friend that boys who enlist between the ages of 17 and 18 ought to have the opportunity of being released from the Army if an appeal is made by parents or guardians. We have never been able to prevail upon the Government to recognise the claim, although they have told us in debate that many boys have been released when representations have been made. Last year the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who was then at the War Office told us that we were always playing the same tune, that there was really nothing in it, that the War Office were most benevolent, and that in 99 cases out of 100 such boys were released. It is rather curious that yesterday I received a letter from one of my constituents—it is dated 27th March—bearing on the particular case that we are bringing forward this morning.
"Dear Sir,
I am writing to ask you whether you can do anything for us with regard to getting the discharge of our son from the Army. The Minister "—
That is the clerical minister of the place where they live—
wrote in the first place and they sent a form to fill up, to apply on compassionate grounds which I did, and the minister signed it, and I also got written a guarantee of employment. I wrote a letter stating our case and also enclosed his birth certificate. He is not 18 until next November, but they refused to grant his discharge. I still think we can claim him out on account of his age, never mind about compassionate grounds, and I think we have a good case on that. He is the eldest boy of our family of eight. We have two daughters older. He enlisted last August against our wishes and got his papers signed as 18 by someone else.
That shows the dodging that is done.
His mother had a damaged heart before he went, and the shock of him going and
being away from home so young is telling on her so much that I am obliged to apply for his discharge for her sake. He realises his mistake and would be glad to come home for his mother's sake if we can get him discharged. So will you do what you can for us as soon as possible? I am enclosing reply I have had from them, so you will see what regiment he is in, and I enclose stamped addressed envelope reply. Hoping to hear from you soon.
The letter from the Army says:
With reference to your letter regarding the discharge of your son "—
They mention his name—
I have to inform you that after careful inquiry and full consideration of the case, the Brigade Commander and the Commanding Officer are of opinion that there is no case for discharge on compassionate grounds. Birth certificate is returned herewith.
That is a typical case of a lad joining up. In many cases there may be something wrong at home or the boy may be out of work. He sees a recruiting officer, who tells him all the attractions of the Army, and he joins up. He regrets his action very quickly and wants to get home. He is under 18 and he gives proof of it and yet he is not allowed to go free. We claim that the Army is a useful and decent occupation. Why then should the Army attempt to get boys under age? To me it seems ridiculous and almost a travesty of Section SO of the Army Act, which says:
Every person authorised to enlist recruits in the regular forces shall give to every person offering to enlist a notice in the form for the time being authorised by the Army Council, stating the general requirements of attestation and the general conditions of the contract to be entered into by the recruit, and directing such person to appear before a justice of the peace either forthwith or at the time and place therein mentioned.
All that is done to warn the recruit, and yet they miss the vital point. Why should there be any objection to saying to the recruit: "You must have a birth certificate." The Army is a good occupation and we do not want men to go in unless they are sure that they want to take up Army life. Why should they not be asked to produce a birth certificate, to clear all doubts away. It would seem as if by all means recruits must be got, and then the question comes later whether or not they should be released. I should like to quote from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), who spoke of the
advantages of Army life last year. He said:
In 99 cases out of 100 a boy who wants to join the Army at 17, and takes risk in doing so, is far more likely to get enjoyment out of Army life than from the scanty means of livelihood open in many parts of England to young men of the working classes. In 99 cases out of a 100 there is no better life than Army life. In a very large percentage of cases the alternative in a poverty-stricken family at home offers utterly inferior amenities and pleasures. Instead of travel, adventure, health, happiness, open air life and exercise, it means, in many cases, a life spent in and out of employment, a life where a man only casually and precariously makes any contribution to the home, and a life in many cases devoid of brightness."—[OFFTCIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1934; col. 332, Vol. 288.]
That speech shows the advantage of Army life. With all these advantages and an honourable occupation to follow, why cannot the Army say to these boys: "You are going to enjoy this occupation; it is an occupation worth following, but we must be quite sure that you are 18 years of age before we can take you." They do not do that. I cannot understand why that should be so. It is not so in other occupations. If a boy enters the Civil Service he has to produce his birth certificate. If he is entering the service of a borough council, a birth certificate must be produced. Even in connection with the coal mines we have a scale for boys under 18 years of age. When a boy is taken on in a pit in Lancashire, he signs on, but he must in the course of the week bring his birth certificate, and if it does not confirm what he has said about his age then his wages are fixed accordingly. Where there is any doubt a birth certificate ought to be required.
I would plead with hon. Members opposite. I know the old Army tradition. I have read about the times of the press gang, when it was necessary to get men into the Army. I know about conscription, when it was necessary to get men to defend the country, but to-day we are told that the Army provides a healthy, bright occupation and that the pay given to recruits is worth having. We are also told that in the Army youths are trained for any occupation they may desire to follow afterwards, and yet, despite all these attractions, the Army try to get young boys under 18 years of age. It is indefensible. I suggest that
it should be an essential qualification before a boy can join the Army that the officer or the recruiting sergeant must be satisfied that he is of age. He could be attested and his birth certificate could come afterwards, but wherever it is proved that he is not 18 years of age then he ought not to be kept in the Army.

11.54 a.m.

Mr. PIKE: It is very pleasant to hear hon. Members opposite eulogising the Army and the life that the average solidier lives, but I must ask the Committee to reject any overtures in favour of the adoption of the Clause, because the Clause is not necessary. There are already sufficient provisions and powers in the hands of the authorities to deal with such cases as have been quoted by the two hon. Members. The whole question is whether a boy is 18 or 17 and whether he has told the truth. I come from a heavy industrial area where many young boys who are unemployed and of perhaps not very comfortable home circumstances attempt to enrol in the Forces. They are subjected to every test such as a youth of over 18 would go through and if they are physically fit and pass every other qualification demanded of them they enter the Services.
Let me give hon. Members opposite a specific case. A boy of good physique enlisted at the age of 17 years and one week. He served in the army until he was two weeks short of 18 years of age and proved a very efficient soldier. He developed physically and mentally. His parents applied to me for his release on compassionate grounds, that his father had fallen out of work, his elder brother had got married, and that if they could get him home his earning capacity would greatly enhance the income of the household. Had the Minister immediately responded to that compassionate appeal what would have been the result? The boy would have gone home with no guarantee of employment, no guarantee of becoming automatically a wage earner and contributor to the household, and quite possibly he would have become a charge on the State or the local authority. In addition he would have lost completely the lessons he had gained during his eleven months of service, lost the inspiration of the service and also his value as a good citizen of the State.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite do not want to see such things take place.
If a boy desires to leave the Army let him leave if he has enlisted under age. He is no good to the Army if he does not want to be there, he will never make a soldier. But having enlisted in the Army it is the duty of the State to see that before they release him he has a job to go to and is not going to be a charge upon other services or funds in the State. Generally speaking I can see no difference between a boy of 18 years and one day and a boy eighteen years old, and if it is a question of justifying a compassionate appeal there is no reason why a mother who finds that her son has enlisted at the age of 18 years and one day should not appeal on compassionate grounds, and put the service to a lot of trouble and expense, any more than a mother whose son enlisted at the age of 17 years eleven months and 29 days. The whole argument is nothing more or less than an attempt to meet one or two, certainly very few, disgruntled cases. If I were moving this new clause I should ask why did the boy enlist; and what is the real object in trying to get him out of a life which is healthy, comfortable and which offers him a future. I ask the Financial Secretary before accepting the new Clause to consider carefully the grave injury which might be done to hundreds of young boys in the service who like the life, who want to continue it and to serve their country in the forces.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. HACKING: The Bill is called the Army Annual Bill, and if I may say without offence to hon. Members opposite, their speeches are becoming annual speeches as well. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) hoped that they would have a satisfactory speech from the Financial Secretary on this occasion. I can assure him that they are going to hear a very satisfactory speech, the same kind of speech that was delivered 12 months ago. If I were to give a short reply to the debate it would be to refer hon. Members to the reply which was given 12 months ago to a similar question, but I am rather doubtful whether hon. Members would consider that a courteous way of replying to the debate. Therefore, if they are not disposed to
be satisfied with that kind of short answer, I am compelled to repeat the case which was put against the arguments made 12 months ago. There are two classes of soldiers who enlist under 18 years of age. There are those who enlist as boys for training as tradesmen and buglers and drummers. They are not enlisted without the consent of their parents or guardians being first obtained, and this consent is actually obtained in writing. I have in my hand Army Form B.5110, in which the parents are compelled to write the name of the boy on the top of the form, and then are required to answer the questions:
Do you consent to the enlistment of the above young boy in His Majesty's Army?
Do you understand that he will be enlisted to fill a vacancy for a boy in the… regiment stationed at.…
That form has to be signed by the parents or guardians of the boy, and finally it has to be countersigned by a witness to the signature of the parents or guardians. The witness has to certify that the answers to the above questions were made and the form signed by the parents or guardians in his presence; and the witness has to be someone of standing and authority.

Mr. PARKINSON: Does that apply to all boys under 18 years of age?

Mr. HACKING: These are boys who are enlisted in the special class, enlisted deliberately as boys, to be trained for some trade in the Army or as buglers or drummers. There is absolutely no doubt about the consent of the parents or guardians being obtained in these cases. If there is a doubt it would simply be that the recruiting authorities might imagine that the signatories are the real parents or guardians but possibly some months later the real parents may turn up and prove that they are in fact the parents or the guardians of the youth. In those cases there is absolutely no doubt about the boy being released. So far as the case of boys is concerned, therefore, I think we may be quite happy. The other class of recruit referred to in this Clause is the one who enlists as 18 or over and mis-states his age. It is that class with which the Committee is more concerned. Let me state what is the procedure. I will quote from the "Regulations for Recruiting for the Regular Army." This is the 1934 edition, and
here are the regulations which are in possession of every recruiting officer. Paragraph 73 states this:
Where there is the slightest suspicion that the recruit is under the age limit full inquiries will be made before final approval.
All inquiries relating to age or character should be made with the utmost promptitude to prevent a recruit being lost to the Service. He may be attested, but not finally approved, pending the result of such inquiries. If the result of the inquiries is unsatisfactory the recruit, if attested, will be at once discharged.
That shows that so far as our instructions are concerned we do everything we can to ascertain the right age of these youths. Rut the attestation form itself is perfectly clear that there is a very severe punishment for stating the wrong age. The form is in the hands of the recruit, and in very black type these words appear:
You are hereby warned that if after enlistment it is found that you have given a wilfully false answer to any of the following eight questions, you will be liable to a punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
The very first question that comes after that notification is, "What was your age on your last birthday?"; and the second question is, "The day, the month and the year of your birth." We are succeeding every year better than we have done in previous years in stopping these boys from giving false ages. I was asked if I could give figures of discharges of boys under 17 and under 18 years of age. As far as the category of those under 17 is concerned, if application is made they are all discharged freely. The figures, therefore, are of all those discharged under 18. I do not know the numbers who join up under a false age, because quite clearly there are many of them who stay in the Army and the false age is not discovered; but I do know the number discharged for having made a wilful misstatement of age, and obviously there is some relationship in these two sets of figures.
In 1931–32 416 were discharged for having made a misstatement of age. The figures dropped in 1932–33 to 294. In 1933–34—the recruiting year ends on September 30th—255 were discharged. That works out to the total of recruits accepted as one per cent., which is a very small percentage. But if in spite of our precautions youths do enlist under age the matter is dealt with roughly
on the lines stated by the hon. Member opposite. If, for example, on application being made the youth is still under 17, there is a free discharge without the slightest doubt. If the youth is between 17 and 18 years of age at the date of application a free discharge is granted if compassionate circumstances are proved, and if the soldier would be in a better position to assist his parents in civil life than if he continued in the Army.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said that this is only carried out in theory. With his experience at the War Office he must realise that very full consideration is given to these cases, that very full individual attention is given to every one of these cases, and it is really something more than theory. In practice we do a great deal, and in practice we carry out those instructions very religiously. There are quite a number of cases. If we can prove those two things, which constitute grounds for discharge, there is very little dissatisfaction with regard to the way in which this regulation is administered. Then if there is less than three months' service there is a statutory right to discharge on payment of £20. Subsequent to that unless there is special training in a trade as a driver or in some other way, when there has been a cost to the State in training a man to be efficient, the amount required on discharge is £35. That amount, of course, goes up in accordance with the value of the training that the man has received at the expense of the State.
From some of the speeches to-day one might assume that those enlisting under age are without exception miserable and that they all desire to be discharged. That is far from true. I can give many examples of young soldiers who have preferred to stay in the Army rather than go back to possibly unhappy conditions at home. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has given one example. If these youths wish to stay on and are sound in health and strong in limb—they all have to undergo a very close medical examination—I can imagine few better careers than a career in the Army. At any rate I go so far as to say that it would be wrong to compel their discharge to conditions of possible misery and poverty if they are returned to their own homes.
A youth after enlistment is in our keeping, and we must study his best interests. That does not mean that we overlook the interests of the parents. We take everything into consideration, the amount of money that the youth could earn if he returned to civil life, the amount that the soldier could allot from his pay if he remained in the Army, the health of the parents, their age and their occupation, the health and the numbers and ages of the other members of the family. After weighing up all these considerations and others we reach a decision, and if a discharge is in the best interest of the parents and of the soldier a free discharge is sympathetically considered. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street indicated that it was not legal to keep a soldier who had enlisted before he was 18 years of age. Let me quote from the Manual of Military Law, Chapter X, paragraph 27, which gives a ruling on this question:
An enlistment is a valid contract although entered into by a person under 21 who by the ordinary rules of law cannot as a general rule contract any engagement.
That is laid down in the Manual of Military Law. It has been disputed, and two cases are cited Rex v. Rotherfield Greys and Rex v. Hardwick. I quote those two cases because the hon. Member says that people are perhaps too poor to take a case into court, and that that is the only reason why we get away with it. In point of fact, the cases having been cited, we feel quite secure that the Manual of Military Law expresses the actual law of the land.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those were cases of boys under 18? He mentioned under 21, but I should like to know whether those are cases under 18.

Mr. HACKING: Under 21 would include under 18. Then the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in the early part of his speech, quoted a case of hardship. I think he knows, and many other Members realise, that if a case of hardship such as that is given to me, I always have the fullest inquiry made into it, and if he will hand me that particular case, I will promise to have it thoroughly looked into. Without exception I get a report, and without exception I consider the reports carefully, and I know that I have given some measure of satisfaction to Members of the House whenever they
have a good case. I promise to apply the same consideration to this case as to any others.

Mr. TINKER: I only got the letter last night. Had I got it earlier, I would have handed it to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. HACKING: I am not complaining of the hon. Gentleman's action, but if he will be good enough to let me have the case, I will take it as a privilege to look into it. Then the hon. Member for Leigh is very anxious that a birth certificate should be produced in every case. I am told that this was tried about 25 years ago, and was a failure then. For the same reason, probably, it would be a failure now, because most of the intending recruits could not furnish these certificates. To demand the production of birth certificates would clearly be objectionable for many reasons, each of which, I believe, would be conclusive in itself. First of all, the production of a birth certificate would involve trouble and delay and very frequently expense, especially if a copy of the birth certificate had to be purchased. Each of those troubles would put off intending recruits. If the hon. Member's desire is to reduce the number of recruits, by all means have the birth certificate.
Let me give the second reason why it is objectionable that a birth certificate should always be produced. Many men prefer to enlist under assumed names. The reasons are best known to the individuals themselves, but I think many of us can understand the real reason, and are we, by compelling the production of birth certificates in those cases, to prevent a fellow from having a second chance in life? I do not think any of us would be prepared to be so harsh as that. The third reason is that a number of recruits are the sons of parents who were not married at the time their sons were born. No Member of this Committee, I am sure, would wish to spoil their chances of making good. For those reasons, each one of which, as I say, is conclusive in itself, I would ask the Committee to resist the Clause which will be moved shortly by the hon. Member for Leigh. To conclude, surely the present system of wise discretion is better than the rigid law such as is suggested in the proposed new clause, in the execution of which cases of serious hardship might
well be created, like the hardships I have already indicated. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to leave the position as it now stands, and reject this Clause, and also the Clause which, I understand, is to be moved subsequently by the hon. Member for Leigh.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. PALING: With regard to the production of a birth certificate, I wonder if the same objections would apply in ordinary civil life. There are a number of cases in which birth certificates have to be produced in order to get occupation, and do things of various descriptions, but no one would think of using the arguments that have been used this morning; in fact, such arguments have always been held to be entirely groundless. The right hon. Member said that 25 years ago it was in operation, and that it was a failure. I venture to say that if there were any substance in that argument 25 years ago, there is none to-day. The system of registration during the last generation has been so efficient that the difficulty of getting a birth certificate is almost nonexistent. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of expense. What really is the expense connected with getting a birth certificate? Little or none. Then he said that if our idea is to stop recruiting, by all means let us have a birth certificate. The contrary argument to that is: "In order to stimulate recruiting, let us get them into the Army whether they can produce a birth certificate or not, or are 18 or not. A boy should be 18 years of age before joining the Army, but in order to get him there, we will take him as long as he is an efficient soldier."
It seems to me that the Army is trying to have the best of both worlds. There is a line of demarcation. If a boy joins at 18, the Army has certain legal rights over him, but surely if he enters under 18 the parents should have some legal right over him. But the Army does not recognise that, and will only grant that right in special circumstances. If you can prove, on compassionate grounds, that the boy is necessary at home, then the legal right of the parent will stand, but if you cannot do that, then the legal right will not stand. In spite of that fact, the Army says "He did not join until 18, and we will take him and keep him." I do not think it is quite fair to the parents to
argue like that. I was interested in the argument of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), who was supported by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that one of these boys joins under 18, and then you find out that the circumstances in his home are not as good as they might be, and that the circumstances in the Army are better. Who is to judge? Not the parents of the boy. The Army is going to be the judge in that case.

Mr. PIKE: The hon. Member is wrong when he says that the Army is going to be the judge, because even on compassionate grounds, if applications are made, I believe it is the practice of the authorities to make very stringent inquiries of the boy himself as to his inclination or desire to remain in the Army or go back.

Mr. PALING: But they do not say to the boy, "Whatever you say will decide the issue." He is allowed to state his opinion, but the Army decides what the issue shall be.
Listening to the hon. Member opposite I wondered whether he was adopting a new doctrine. We Socialists are often accused of having the intention, if we ever come into power, of elevating the State above everything, and of making the benefit of the State the deciding factor in everything. It is said by some of our opponents that we would even go the length of destroying the family. It struck me that the hon. Member as a Conservative was, himself, arguing in that direction this morning. His argument in effect was this—that whether a boy joined the Army under the age of 18 of not, whether he joined illegally or not if the State decided that he was better off, under the State, in the

Army than he would be in private life, then they should take him away from his home and his parents and his parents should have no rights in the matter. Talk about breaking up family life. If the hon. Member will read his speech to-morrow he will see that that appears to be the very thing for which he himself stands. Is it really asking too much to require that a birth certificate should be put in by these lads? At present if a boy, or a girl for that matter, wants to go to work—however necessary the income may be to the family, however badly off the family may be—that boy or girl is not allowed to go into employment before the age of 14, and if an employer takes on a young person under 14 he becomes liable to prosecution. That system operates in most walks of life.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And in certain cases before a boy can get unemployment benefit, if there is any doubt, he has to produce his birth certificate.

Mr. PALING: It applies almost generally in civil life but it does not apply to the Army. The Army dispense with this requirement in order to get recruits. Apparently it does not matter whether they are 16 or 18 or 20 as long as they are suitable as recruits and the Army itself is to decide whether their enlistment is legal or illegal. I think the system is most unfair. The excuses which have been put up by the right hon. Gentleman do not meet the case and I wish that we could defeat the Government on this question.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes 90.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[12.28 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorns, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lawson, John James



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leckie, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Blindell, James
Browne, Captain A. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, Harry R.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Craft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Liewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
McKle, John Hamilton
Storey, Samuel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stourton, Hop. John J.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Milne, Charles
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Goldie, Noel B.
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Grimston. R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilstan)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Pike, Cecil F.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wise, Alfred R.


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).



Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandys, Edwin Duncan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 80 (1).

"The following words shall be added at the end of sub-section (1) of section eighty of the Army Act, 'and produce his birth certificate,' "—[Mr. Tinker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. Tinker.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 102.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[12.36 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentins L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George-
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lanabury, Rt. Hon. George



Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundes)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morrison, William Shepherd


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ganzoni. Sir John
Munro, Patrick


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goldie. Noel B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pfn, Bllst'n)


Ask", Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
Fike, Cecil F.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hamilton. Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isle")


Blindell, James
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Rea, Walter Russell


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C (Berks, Newb'y)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Seltey, Harry H.


Burghley, Lord
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Conant, R. J. E.
Liewellin, Major John J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Crooke, J. Smedley
Mabane, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
McKle, John Hamilton
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Milne, Charles
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Watt, Major George Steven H.
Wise, Alfred R.



Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersley, Sir Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I select is the proposed new Clause.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 81.)

Mr. MAXTON: Are you not calling the proposed new Clause—" Appointment of soldiers' committees to advise soldiers in presenting their wrongs?"

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given careful consideration to that proposed new Clause, and I have looked up the precedents as to the questions that are permissable in the discussions on the Army Annual Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that this is really a matter of administration which should be raised on the Estimates.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 81.)

"In section eighty-one of the Army Act (which relates to power of recruit to purchase discharge), for the words "three months," in line one, there shall be substituted the words "one year," and for the word "twenty," in line three, there shall be substituted the word 'two.'"—[Mr. Maxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Section 81 of the Army Act provides that if a young man, having joined the Army, finds that the life is uncongenial to him, or that he is unsuited to it, or that there are some strong reasons why he should return to civil life, he may, within a period of three months, purchase his discharge for the sum of £20. We think that three months is much too short a period for a man to know what his feelings are towards Army life. In most walks of life most of us do not know in three months whether we shall find our particular work congenial or not. A 12 months' period of trial and experiment is much more usual than three months. Therefore, we suggest the extension of the time to 12 months, so that at any time in the first year of his service a soldier or his friends may have the right to withdraw by purchase.
We wish, in addition, to reduce the sum that he would have to pay for his
discharge from £20 to £2, Most of the young men concerned, particularly in these days, are drawn from working-class or unemployed homes. A sum of £20 either to the serving soldier himself or to his relations in an enormous amount of money. It is prohibitive for the ordinary manual worker if employed, and unthinkable if he is unemployed. A large proportion of the young men who have in recent years joined the Army have come from homes where there is severe unemployment. That indeed has been one of the factors which have urged a young man to join the Army. We think that in such circumstances to say that he can have his discharge to civil life for an expenditure for £20 is no concession, because it is simply saying to him that he cannot have it because he or his friends cannot find £20. We suggest the substitution of the much more moderate sum of £2, which would represent a real sacrifice and would be sufficient to deter the soldier or his friends from treating the matter lightly. Two pounds is a substantial sum in a working-class home and a very large sum in an unemployed home. To alter the Clause as we suggest, would make it more in keeping with a realisation of the actual conditions in this country than the existing section does.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I want to oppose this proposed new Clause for the very reasons that have been submitted by the hon. Member who has moved it. Perhaps there is an analogy that might be drawn. There are still such things in this country as apprenticeships. If a son of mine were apprenticed to a given trade at a certain premium, it would according to the hon. Member be only right if after a certain period, say of 12 months, the son did not like his surroundings, that I should be able to claim that the penalty for breaking the contract between the tutor and the apprentice should be reduced. I hope that the hon. Member will not think I am malicious, but I believe that there is an ulterior motive behind this new Clause, and I can thoroughly understand it. The hon. Member really
gave the game away when we were discussing the measure known as the Sedition Act. Communists or any person who attempts to seduce the ordinary men of the Services from his allegiance to the Crown have had their activities curbed by that Act. This new Clause would lead to the possibility of a person enrolling in His Majesty's Services under the guise of a genuine soldier for the specific purpose of using his 12 months to distribute or disseminate propaganda.

Mr. MAXTON: I had not thought of that. It is certainly an idea worth considering.

Mr. PIKE: That is the reason why I claim the Clause should not be accepted. It would lead to that possibility. The party, anxious that this antagonistic propaganda should be disseminated, but being in low funds and not having a sufficient membership to guarantee a banking account, would be much better able to get together £2 as the result of a public meeting than they would be able to scrape together £20. Therefore the hon. Member, with all due respect to him, is to be respected in so far as he is conscientiously inclined in these directions in finding this very novel way of introducing a dangerous thing. I do not impute the motive to him, but he has admitted that he sees the possibility of it. After all, if a recruit enlists in the Services, as the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, the State attempts not only to make the best use of his services but to bring out the best qualities in the man himself. Not only do they teach him a trade, but they give him facilities for scientific knowledge which in ordinary civil life he would never be able to acquire. It is only fair to say that after three months those in charge of that man have an opportunity of knowing whether or not he is likely to be a suitable recruit for a specific type of service. It is unfair after the initial plans have been laid down and expenditure incurred that this person should by his own will by paying a paltry £2 be able to leave the Service and destroy all the ideals of himself on the one hand and the expenditure which has been laid down in respect of him on the other. I believe that it would considerably hold up the question of enlistment and the responsibility of recruits to ridicule, and, in so far as the British Army is concerned, I hope that
nothing will ever be introduced into the regulations to make that possible.

12.57 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I know nothing about these ulterior motives.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear.

Mr. HACKING: I say that I know nothing about these ulterior motives—I am not going further than that—but I should never suspect the hon. Members of doing anything that they were not prepared to come into the open about. Therefore, I do not want to say anything about any suggestion of ulterior motives, but to deal with the proposed new Clause on its merits. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that three months was much too short a period for a soldier to make up his mind whether or not he would be happy in remaining in the Army. The hon. Member would be one of the first to consider the interests of the State. He believes in State control and would therefore never overlook the interest of the State even though he would take into consideration the interest of the individual soldier. Considering the interests of the State, he must take into account the cost of the training of these young soldiers, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike).
I can assure the Committee that the cost of training to-day is very considerably much more than it was before the days of mechanisation, and, if a youth were to be allowed to come in for 12 months, take advantage of the training which he obtained and then go out again into civil life within a 12 months' period, I am sure that he would unnecessarily be using up a great amount of State money. As the hon. Member for Bridge-ton said, the effect of this Clause would be to allow a youth to be in the Army for 12 months and then be bought out at a cost of £2. I wonder whether he has considered the young fellow who perhaps after 12 months or just before the 12 months' period of service has expired gets just a little tired of Army life. He goes out after 11½ months' service and then shortly after finds that the Army was not so bad after all, comes back, does another 11½ months' service, goes out again, between periods of service in the Army enjoying considerable periods of leave. I think that the hon. Member
would agree that that would not be conducive to the smooth running of any machine, even an efficient machine like the Army. How about when a battalion was getting ready for foreign service '? Some young soldiers may decide that they are going to take advantage of the facilities now being granted to them by the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his friends and say, "No, we are not very keen' on foreign service" just before the battalion is due to go abroad, and decide to take their discharge. You can imagine the chaos in the battalion. They may have to start with even younger recruits, and it would be very difficult for them to complete the training which is necessary in so short a time. There is no doubt about it, whatever the ulterior motives may be, if this Clause were accepted, the dislocation would be very serious, and it would make administration in the Army quite impossible. I ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment, and, if he does, I ask the House to reject it.

1.2 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A Government does its best to get a Bill through as easily and quickly as possible, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not spare time for a few lessons to his supporters, not that one minds what they say. I once had a foreman beside me who was always looking for something that was wrong, and it was said that he had a mind like a sewer. I can assure the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) on the question of distributing literature to seduce soldiers that if somebody wanted to do that the question of £2 or £20 would not stand in his way. If a Power wanted to do that sort of thing a few miserable pounds would not stand in its way. I ask the Committee not to take the hon. Member seriously. We have already dismissed him on the subject of unemployment insurance, and I trust that on Army matters his fate will be the same. I turn to more weighty considerations. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office always seeks out the, weakness in a person's case and plays on that. It is good debating, and I take no exception to it. He bases all his case practically on the 12 months and says little or nothing about the £20 or £2. If the right hon. Gentleman
will concede us the £2, we will not press for the 12 months. When we put in the claim for the 12 months we knew it had certain weaknesses which do not pertain to the £2. The right hon. Gentleman said that men would seek to leave the Army on the eve of a regiment going abroad. It is not the common practice to send abroad men in their first year or two years of service, though it is sometimes done.
In my own case I served an apprenticeship of six years at my trade, which is one in which the unfit are very quickly eliminated, but we have found that it is only after a year or two that a lad really knows whether he will ever be fit for the trade. I daresay that during a young man's first few months in the Army he is treated as he would be treated in any other human establishment; they are kind to him, they forgive his faults, his failings, and his stupidities, they are tolerant towards him; but at some time will come the test of whether he will make a soldier or not. It is not always a case of a man not liking the Army. I have had considerable experience of endeavouring to get recruits released from the Army, because a large number of young men in my constituency join the Army. What I have found is that they do not always want to leave because they are against life in the Army, but because they feel they will never make a soldier; just as some men may feel they will never become journalists or pattern makers. The young man has not got his heart and soul in his job and feels that he will fail to make as good a soldier as his fellows. It will take 12 months to find that out. In the first six months or so in the Army they will be kindly and tolerant towards him; it is only in the second six months that the test will arise. Though I have never been in the Army myself that is what I have learned from my experience in dealing with the cases of men who want to get out of the Army. They feel they cannot make as good soldiers as the others. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will know that nothing annoys a miner more than the thought that he cannot pull his weight with his fellow miners, and it is the same with soldiers.
I turn now to the other point of £20 as against £2, and will illustrate it with a case which came under my notice only a few months ago. The son of a man living
in the neighbouring division to mine, which in the main is a wealthy division, joined the Army, and after 2½ months was bought out. His father was a commission agent and bought him out for £20, which is less than 20 pence to any constituent of mine. In the very same week one of my constituents wanted to buy his son out of the Army, but he could not afford to do so. To find £20 was a terrible matter for him; it would have been hard enough to find £2. There we see a distinction between a man who can easily put down £20 and get his boy out without any trouble and another poor fellow, living within a quarter of a mile of him, who cannot afford to pay the £20. In these days of equality surely we are not going to say that a man is to be denied a right simply for lack of money. Even in police courts we recognise that fines must be graded according to a man's capacity to pay. To a man who is well off £20 means nothing, but to poor people it is a prohibitive, almost an impossible, sum. Therefore, we say that on this question of money, whatever may be said about the period of a year, we have an unanswerable case, and that this concession ought to be granted in order to put all sections of the community on a level.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST YOUNG: I am inclined to support this Amendment, which I regard as a very reasonable one. The sum of £20 is absurdly high. I think the Minister has made his calculations on an actuarial basis in suggesting that because the cost of training a recruit is so high the State ought to be reimbursed as far as possible if a man leaves the Army at the end of three months. There is another point of view. While assessing the expenditure of the State on the training of these young men the Minister must not forget that the men render a great deal of service while in the Army. It is not all give on one side and take on the other. Speaking with five years' experience as a soldier, I maintain that a

private soldier works very hard indeed. He has to shovel coal out of trucks, he has to be a domestic servant and peel-potatoes, he has to be an ostler, sometimes even he has to be the horse. A private soldier gives a good deal of value while he remains in the service, and in calculating how much we are to charge him if he wishes to retire we ought to make allowances for the services he has rendered to the State. No doubt most of those who wish to retire from the Army are unable to find the £20, because to them that is a small fortune. It is probably four times as much as the State pays that man in the first three months of his service. We are accustomed to smugglers, when they are discovered, being charged the heavy penalty of four times the value of the smuggled goods. It seems as though we are imposing a very heavy penalty upon people who wish to retire from the Army, making no allowance for the service which they have put into it, and only taking into account the value which the State has provided in the training.

The argument is that the Army might not wish them to retire, but would it not be very much better that they should retire, if their heart is not in the business, than that the State should have to send them abroad, incur further expenses and, in the end, turn out an inferior article instead of the better article that might have been obtained if the lad had been allowed to retire? The sum of £20 should be very considerably reduced. The hon. Member who moved the Clause protested against the absurdity of the existing sum, and I hope the Minister will give way upon it and will agree to reduce it to the dimensions proposed by the hon. Member;, or to some still lower figure.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes 17; Noes 109.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[1.17 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dobbie, William
Jenkins, Sir William
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Buchanan.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
John, William



NOES


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goldie, Noel B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Held, William Allan (Derby)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Selley, Harry R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Blindell, James
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Somerville, D. G. (Wlliesden, East)


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spens, William Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Strauss, Edward A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Knight, Holford
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Leckie, J. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Campbell, Vice-Admira. G. (Burnley)
Liewellin, Major John J.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Tinker, John Joseph


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Tree, Ronald


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Mabane, William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Conant, R. J. E.
Maitland, Adam
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Cook, Thomas A.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Craven-Ellis, William
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Milne, Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Morrison, William Shephard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Essenhigh. Reginald Clare
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardin, S.)
Penny, Sir George



Fremantle, Sir Francis
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Raikes, Henry v. A. M.
Sir Walter Womersley and Major


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
George Davies.


Goff, Sir Park
Rathbone, Eleanor

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 146.)

"In section one hundred and forty-six of the Army Act (which relates to officers not to be sheriffs or mayors), after the word 'officer,' in line one, there be inserted the words 'or soldier,' and after "officer,' in line eight, there be inserted the words' or soldier.'".—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause relates to the right of the private soldier to stand for a public body. If hon. Members will look at Section 146 of the Army Act, they will see that it reads as follows:
An officer of the regular forces on the active list within the meaning of any Royal Warrant for regulating the pay and promotion of the regular forces shall not be capable of being nominated or elected to be sheriff in any county, borough, or other place, or to be mayor or alderman of, or to hold any office in, any municipal corporation in any city, borough, or place in the United Kingdom: Provided that nothing in this section shall disqualify any officer, for being elected to or being a member of a county council.

An officer is entitled under that Section to be elected to a county council, and our Amendment simply says that a private should be allowed to become a member of a county council as well—in other words, that there should be no class distinction as between the private and the officer in regard to election to a county council.

I must confess that I cannot anticipate what the Financial Secretary is going to say on this question. He or his officials, or a combination of both, are able to produce the most ingenious reasons for not accepting Amendments, and I do not doubt that in this case also they will produce an ingenious jig-saw puzzle of a reason. As far as I can see, however, the officer is able to stand for election, and, if the electors are wise or foolish enough, according to their views, to be elected to a county council; and I can see no reason why that should not apply to privates also. In these days, when we are told in public bodies that the rights of citizens of all ranks should be as nearly equal as possible, and that there should be no bar against any one class of people in civil life, I cannot see why there should be a bar against the private soldier in this matter, and although the Financial
Secretary, like all his predecessors, seems disinclined to accept any Amendment at all, I trust that we shall see some change in his attitude to-day, and that, whatever he may have said on other occasions, he will extend to the ordinary private soldier an equal right with the officer to become a member of a county council.

1.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there should be no class distinction in the regulations which govern the admission of officers or men into local government bodies. The first part of the Section which the hon. Member has quoted is restrictive; it says that officers may not take part in the more urban forms of local government, to put it shortly; and the hon. Member, in his desire that soldiers should be on the same footing, seeks to make that restriction applicable also to soldiers. I am in entire agreement with that. But the proviso, as the law stands, enables officers to sit on county councils, and the Amendment seeks to make the same conditions applicable to soldiers also. While I am in entire agreement with the restrictive power of the Section, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he could not consider, before the next Army Annual Bill is brought to the House of Commons, inserting an Amendment in the Bill which would have the effect of prohibiting officers and also soldiers from sitting on county councils.
My reason is that, whereas it is admitted by implication in the first part of the Section that the urban forms of local government have tended to become—and they have in fact become in many cases—party political, in that the members who sit on those bodies represent the ordinary party political alignments in this country, it has not been recognised that the same applies to county councils, and, indeed, in the case of the majority of county councils, it does not apply to them. But there is, unfortunately, a small number of county councils—that of London, for instance—where the party alignments are broadly the same as they are in ordinary national politics, and I think that for that reason it would be desirable formally to amend the law and to declare a severance between serving officers and soldiers and any form of local government at all, since county councils as well as the now prohibited forms of local
government have tended to become, and in some cases have become, party political.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I desire to support the proposed new Clause, because I cannot see that this distinction between officers and men is justified. After all, the common purpose of both is to fight for their King and country, and both give the best of their lives in that service; and if any privilege like that of serving on a county council is going to be given to the one section, it ought to be to the other. I do not see why there should be any distinction at all. It might have been justified in the early days, because, as is well known, from the point of view of education the common soldier was not the equal of the officer; but we have gone beyond that now. The common soldier to-day is, generally speaking, fairly well educated—he has to be—and, therefore, can take part in county council or other local government work equally with an officer, and in my opinion there is no ground which can justify the giving of this privilege to the one and not to the other. I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for bringing this matter forward and drawing the attention of the House to the position at the present time. It may be that the Financial Secretary may say that the time has come when the common soldier is entitled to the same rights and privileges as the officer, and in that case my speaking for the Clause will have been unnecessary.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: I desire to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) in asking the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider at some early future date the deletion of the proviso to Section 146 of the Army Act, which now enables an officer to sit on a county council. I notice that this Section dates from the days of Queen Victoria, and in those days county councils, when they were set up, were largely non-political. To-day they are becoming increasingly political, and the elections in various parts of the country are being fought more and more on political lines. In places like London, Glasgow and Durham the county council
elections are now being fought on political lines, and I think it is time that officers should conform to the general rule of keeping out of politics, and should not be allowed to stand for a county council.

1.34 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is wondering what excuse will be made to justify the argument that has been brought to bear on this matter so frequently in the House. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) paid me the compliment of an ingenuity which I must share with some of my predecessors—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Certainly; we do not wish to give credit to one more than another.

Mr. HACKING: I know, however, that the hon. Member realises that if any mistake is made the responsibility will be mine, and, therefore, I think it is only fair that some of the credit also should rest with me. The hon. Member was wondering whether I could produce an ingenious reason to defend the present position. I am very disappointed indeed that I am unable on this occasion to produce that ingenious reason which he, I am sure, expected would be forthcoming. The hon. Member for Gorbals said that there should be no distinction between the private and officer in connection with county council elections. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) suggested that they were in agreement, at any rate with the restrictive portion of the new Clause but they propose to disqualify an officer from being elected or becoming a member of the county council in the same way as a soldier at the present time is disqualified. I think that there is a great deal to be said for their proposal.
I cannot for the life of me at this moment bring forward strong enough reasons to ask the House to vote for the status quo, but, on the other hand, a great responsibility will be placed upon the two hon. Members sitting below the Gangway if I cannot here and now agree to accept their new Clause. The responsibility is theirs, because they have given me such short notice in connection with
the new Clause. It only appeared on the Order Paper this morning, and the probabilities are that had I had an opportunity of making my position absolutely certain, I could have accepted their suggestion, but, as they have given me such short notice, I really must ask for a little more time in which to think this matter over. At the moment, I repeat, I am not satisfied with the present position. My own personal views, for what they are worth, are that there should be equal treatment both for officers and men in this matter of county council elections. As it is said, these are becoming very political and, therefore, it appears to be wrong that either officers or men should take such a prominent part in political elections of that kind. I hope that the hon. Members will withdraw their Clause on this occasion on the definite promise that the matter will be looked into with a great deal of sympathy between now and next year when the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is produced.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very great frankness. If it had been the Minister of any other department standing at that box, I would have apologised for the shortness of notice we had given, but we expect the War Office to be always on the qui vive. One of our Scottish regiments has this motto, "Aye, ready" and we could have hoped that the War Office responsible for directing the activities of that regiment in the field would have had a similar motto. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if he were called upon to direct this force he would have to get out his mobilisation papers pretty quick and make decisions in shorter time than he is called upon here to do. Therefore, we do not have to apologise to him for giving him the best part of 24 hours' notice.

Sir WALTER WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): He has to sleep.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry to hear that; it is different from the Navy. The Lord of the Treasury says that he has to sleep. I do not know why.

Mr. HACKING: I do not think that sleep has very much to do with it. If I had sat up the whole of last night it would not have helped me in this particular instance, because the Order Paper
was not delivered to me at my house in London until 10 o'clock this morning, and I had to be sitting on this Bench at 11 o'clock in order to hear the speeches of hon. Members.

Mr. MAXTON: I would just pass on this tip from the Independent Labour Party to the War Office, and I hope that they will not be too haughty to take advice from such a quarter. When we are interested in something which is to come on on the next day we do not wait for the Order Paper. We go to the Table and enter into friendly conversation with the officials sitting there who are always ready to give Members of this House, and even Ministers, all the information that is necessary in order to carry on their legitimate business. Therefore, the Army has been a little lax in not finding out last night what its job was for to-day.

Mr. HACKING: Let the hon. Gentleman be quite fair. I am very glad to learn of the friendly relations between the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the gentlemen who sit at the Table—I think that that is a very good thing indeed—but I also imagine that there should be friendly relationship between the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the official who sits on this Bench, namely, the Financial Secretary to the War Office. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton had been good enough to acquaint me personally that he had handed in this Clause at the Table and had given me notice of his proposed amendments and thus given me an opportunity of considering them overnight, I should have had my 12 hours' consideration and, no doubt, then would have had a more satisfactory reply to give to the hon. Member. So I really think he must accept a little responsibility for having been a little less friendly with me than I had anticipated. This is not the only amendment in respect of which I have a complaint. Seven new Amendments were put down, and I had several new proposals to consider between 10 and 11 o'clock.

Mr. MAXTON: I certainly at once apologise on behalf of myself and colleagues for any apparent act of discourtesy. The one thing we always try to be is a model of courtesy to the whole House, but the right hon. Member will recognise
the limitation of our party staff and resources. At the time when we would normally have been telling him about this Clause and explaining precisely what he should be doing to-day, we were engaged in earnest conversation with another Government department over another matter which was also important, but on another occasion we will try to give him the additional time he apparently requires. We wish to divide the House on this new Clause, for this reason. There are two elements involved in the approach to this matter. One is that of putting the soldier on to the same level as the officer, and on that side we have the support of two hon. Members who are normally supporters of the Government. Their object is to put them on a level which is more restrictive than that which presently obtains, and to reduce the right of an officer to participate in the public and civil rights of the nation. That is where they are only agreeing with us in putting the officer on the same level as the soldier. In other words, they want to bring the officer down to the lower citizenship level at which the private is to-day.
I gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that that is the position with which he is in sympathy, but that is not our view. It is to put the two on the same level so that the rank and filer should be on the high level of citizenship that is presently enjoyed by the commissioned officer. We do not want the soldier to have fewer but to have more citizenship rights. We think that that is the trend of the times and not the other way; that the soldier shall be less of a class apart and more of a definite citizen with the rest of us. For these reasons, we propose to carry our Clause into the Division lobby.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In regard to the lack of notice given to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, I should like to absolve my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) of any responsibility. Whatever blame there may be in regard to the matter rests with me. I was engaged with the Minister of Labour on a certain matter, otherwise the Financial Secretary would have received earlier notice.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. YOUNG: It is reasonable that the Financial Secretary should have an opportunity of considering the matter raised by the new Clause. In the meantime, would he be willing to effect a compromise between what is asked in the new Clause and the present position? The word "soldier" obviously means a private soldier, and the suggestion is that the soldier should be given the opportunity to have democratic representation

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 44.)

"In section forty-four of the Army Act (which relates to scales of punishment by court martial), all words after 'officers,' in line four, to the end of '(9) stoppages,' in line fifteen, to be deleted, and the word 'and' inserted in place thereof."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

sentation on public bodies. Would the right hon. Gentleman, be prepared to agree to make a concession with regard to the Sergeant-Major, and having done that and having had more time to think over the problem he might agree later to the private soldier receiving the same opportunity to serve on public bodies?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 101.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[1.47 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Thorns, William James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Daggar, George
John, William



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury. Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Buchanan.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Rea, Walter Russell





NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Held, William Allan (Derby)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Grimston, R. V.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Selley, Harry R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Bllndell, James
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Bossom, A. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spens, William Patrick


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Strauss, Edward A.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Leckle, J. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-admiral Sir Murray F.


Campbell, Vice-admiral G. (Burnley)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Clarke, Frank
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Tree, Ronald


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Mabane, William
Tutnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ward, Lt.-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Cook, Thomas A.
Maitland, Adam
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Craven-Ellis, William
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Donner, P. W.
Milne, Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col, Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morrison, William Shephard
Wise, Alfred R.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nunn, William



Fremantle, Sir Francis
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Womersley.

1.54 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This new Clause raises more or less, but in a different aspect, the same point that was raised on the last Amendment. The object of our Amendments is to bring about equality between the officer and the serving soldier and to ensure that there shall be no discrimination in the future. In our last Amendment we sought to enable the private soldier to serve on a council
with equal status with the officer. We propose that there shall be no discrimination in punishments as between a private soldier and an officer. That is the object of the new Clause. As it is drafted it may not make good reading, but that is our proposal. We want to get this matter decided on the broad principle rather than on technicalities, and the broad principle raised here is that as far as officers and men are concerned there should be no differentiation as regards punishments.
In the case of officers the punishments include death, penal servitude for not less than three years, imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding two years, cashiering and dismissal from His Majesty's Service, severe reprimand, and so on. In the case of soldiers the penalties include death, penal servitude for not less than three years, imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding two years, detention for a period not exceeding two years, discharge with ignominy from the Service, and so on. The punishment which seems most repulsive is that a private soldier is liable to be discharged with ignominy from His Majesty's service. There is no such punishment in the case of an officer. He can be cashiered; but that is not the same thing as being discharged with ignominy. If it is said that being cashiered is the same as being discharged with ignominy why is an offensive phrase applied to a private soldier and the word cashiered applied in the case of an officer? The two things may be the same in actual practice. There is no justification for this discrimination. We say that there should be one set of punishments for officers and men. We want equality in all matters as between officers and those in the ranks, and the new Clause proposes that in regard to punishments all classes in the Army shall be treated in exactly the same way.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I suggest to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that he should move his new Clause in a slightly different form:
In section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scales of punishment by courts-martial) all words after 'officers' in line 4, to the end of' (gg) stoppages,' in line 1.8, shall be deleted and the word 'and' inserted in place thereof.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Thank you, I will move it in that form.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 44.)

"In section forty-four of the Army Act (which relates to scales of punishment by courts-martial), all words after 'officers,' in line four, to the end of' (gg), stoppages,' in line eighteen, shall be deleted, and the word 'and' inserted in place thereof."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made and Question proposed "That the Clause be read a Second time."

2 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: On the last occasion I thought that I had been very generous to hon. Members below the gangway, but their appreciation has not given me too much encouragement as to my future generosity. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that the new clause may not make good reading. That is quite true. I agree with his remarks on that point, because if it were carried it would require an amendment to 18 other sections of the Army Act where cashiering is mentioned. In order to tidy up the Army Act we should have to deal with 18 other sections, but I do not think we need trouble much about that to-day in view of the fact that the hon. Member is likely to be defeated in the division lobby. He says that there should be no difference in the punishment of officers and men. I do not agree with him; for a reason which perhaps he does not expect. I think that an officer's punishment for the same offence should be a great deal more severe than that of the soldier. His responsibilities are greater. He ought to set a good example to his men; and in my submission he should be dealt with more severely than the private soldier. The hon. Member's argument is that at the present time there is an unfair differentiation against the soldier in favour of the officer. That is made plain when the hon. Member for Gorbals says that there should be no difference in the punishment of officers and men, implying that there is a differentiation in favour of officers and against the men. That is not true.
He had referred to cashiering. Cashiering is probably in very many cases a far more serious punishment than imprisonment. It includes great publicity. What
happens to the officer who is cashiered? First, there is publication in the "Gazette," it is in all the newspapers, all his friends know about the disgrace and he is not allowed to become a member of any of the clubs to which he previously belonged. He gets no further employment of any kind from any Government department or any of the Services. In fact, the punishment of being cashiered is very serious indeed. The hon. Member suggests taking out cashiering from the punishments of an officer—

Mr. MAXTON: And putting in discharged with ignominy.

Mr. HACKING: There is this difference between being discharged with ignominy and being cashiered. In the case of a soldier he is under contract to serve for a certain period of time, and when he is discharged he is free to do exactly what he likes, he may be able to join up again. But the officer, on the other hand, serves during His Majesty's pleasure. It is a life job. There is that distinction. Although the punishment is practically the same, there is the distinction that they are on different forms of service altogether. If I thought that an officer with very great responsibilities, in which he has to set a very high example to his men, was getting off more lightly than a soldier for committing the same offence I would not defend the present law. But that is not so. If we accepted this Amendment we would in effect reduce the punishment that could be given to an officer. The Amendment, for example, would make it impossible to reduce the officer in rank or seniority, or to reprimand him. These lists of punishments have been in operation for more years than any one of this House can remember. They have worked quite satisfactorily over that long period of time. I ask the Committee to reject the new Clause and to let us continue on the sound lines which have worked perfectly smoothly almost from the day when the Army was first formed.

2.7 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to make clear a few words that he spoke. He pointed out that an officer would be Gazetted if cashiered, but he also said that a private soldier dismissed with ignominy
is free to rejoin the Army if he cares. Surely one of the most distressing punishments of a private soldier who is in a sense cashiered and turned out of the Army with ignominy is that that fact is recorded on his discharge papers.

Mr. HACKING: We had a long discussion this morning about the production of birth certificates. They are not absolutely essential. It is possible for a man to rejoin the Army under an assumed name, and many of them do.

Mr. GROVES: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not recommend that practice. One of the most distressing punishments of a private soldier who has been dismissed from the Army, sometimes not with ignominy but for becoming intoxicated—I have had such cases brought to my notice—is that he has to carry his discharge book about with him, and at the present time, under the system of registration connected with National Health Insurance, wherever that man goes to apply for a situation he is compelled to disclose the fact that he was a member of the Army at some time, and his discharge book is produced to his prospective employer. That in itself is a punishment much harsher than the fact that the cashiered officer would be Gazetted, because that would be known only to people who read that sort of paper. It is certainly not a form of publicity that appears in every daily newsaper read by the multitude. I admit it is something that is very ignominious for the officer in his own circle and rank of society, and we should not look lightly on that. Nor should we look lightly on the fact that a private soldier, when turned out of the Army with ignominy, carries his discharge book about with him for the rest of his life, and that works very hardly with him.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not know that we are prepared to accept the general doctrine outlined by the Financial Secretary, that differentiation of sentence should bear more harshly on the officer than on the man. I know the theory. It is a common thing, to whom much is given much is required, and so on, that the more responsible the position of a man the greater the obligation on him to act rightly, and the greater the
penalty should be. I am not accepting that doctrine in general at all. But we are not caring, in this instance, whether our Amendment eases or increases penalties for officers. The principle we are putting forward is that there should be exactly the same treatment for officers and men. While theoretically it may be true that Army and Navy authorities regard the offence of an officer as much more severe than the same offence committed by a private soldier, in practice we know that the authorities are prepared to temper the wind very much for the senior officers. The Financial Secretary must not shake his head. We have had the most flagrant case in the last week or two, when an officer of the Navy, sentenced by court martial, has had the sentence completely wiped out and overturned by the superior authorities.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better leave the Navy alone in this debate. It does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I was merely making what I thought was a legitimate point. The Financial Secretary tells me that the War Office hold the view that the commissioned officer should be treated more severely than the private soldier. That may be sound theory, though I am not accepting it. We know that in practice an officer and a gentleman has a certain amount of consideration held out to him by higher authorities—consideration that would not be held out to the private soldier for the same offence.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: In the analogous case that the hon. Member mentioned the fact was that the Admiral suffered.

Mr. MAXTON: No; the effect of the change, I understand, is that there has been no suffering in the end, and that any suffering that had been imposed was withdrawn. If a private soldier got into similar trouble before a court martial he

would be turned out. If a man is convicted in our local police court at home, a working man, there are social consequences for him which have nothing to do with the sentence at all. When the Financial Secretary tells me that cashiering means that a man will be blacklisted, that has nothing to do with the sentence or with the court martial. No court, military or naval, will say, "You are going to be shut out of your club." It is for the club committee to decide that; it is a social taboo. But the soldier dismissed with ignominy is not allowed to slip quietly out of the ranks. If I know the procedure correctly the soldier is dismissed in front of the whole regiment. Definite steps are taken to make him feel the ignominy of his position and to let all his fellows know. In the case of the cashiered officer, it is true, his fellow officers know about it. It is true that the readers of the Gazette know it, but, so far as I am aware, there is no public act in which he is walked out in front of the regiment of which he has been a member, and subjected to personal indignities, as is the private soldier dismissed with ignominy.

In any case we are not arguing whether the officers' punishment is higher or lower. We say that whatever the appropriate punishment is for the offence, it should be the same punishment for the rank and file as for the officer. The right hon. Member made some reference to the procedure, but, as my hon. Friend said, we are not bothering about details. We are putting before the Committee and the country a big principle which is of importance to us, namely, equal treatment in the eyes of the law in the Army as outside, and we ask the Committee to support our proposals by carrying our new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 99.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[2.17 p.m.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cave, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Buchanan.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Rea, Walter Russell



NOES


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W,)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Selley, Harry R.


Blindell, James
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Bossom, A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sutheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Spens, William Patrick


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Knight, Holford
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Strauss, Edward A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Tree, Ronald


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Mabane, William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Cook, Thomas A.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wells, Sidney Richard


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Milne, Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Alfred R.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morrison, William Shepherd
Womersley, Sir Walter


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Penny, Sir George



Ganzoni, Sir John
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Bill read a Second time.

First Schedule (Prices in respect of Billeting).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the first Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. MAXTON: Are you not calling our last Clause on the Order Paper which provides that a general court-martial where a private soldier is being tried shall be composed of private soldiers with a certain length of service?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Clause is so incomplete, that I am unable to call upon him to move it. It is so incomplete that it is out of order. It would require considerable amendment to make it fit in with the Act.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

2.25 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to
move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a modest Measure the object of which is to extend for a further two years the powers of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to prepare and settle schemes under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act of 1930. Certain provisions in that Act were limited to a period of five years. The Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland in the course of his work during the last few months has made representations to the Department that he has in mind one or two schemes to improve land drainage and it is because of his representations that I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Measure. The schemes in question are for the purpose of improving land drainage by, in some cases, repairing the banks of rivers and in other cases removing rocks and such like impediments from the rivers. These schemes which the Commissioner has in view can only be proceeded with if this Bill is passed into law. When the 1930 Act was passed—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Was that an Act of the Labour Government?

Sir G. COLLINS: I think it was passed at that time. Under that Act the cost of drainage schemes was to be recoverable
from the landowners concerned up to an amount representing the estimated value of the benefit expected to accrue to the land affected. The cost of maintenance was also recoverable up to an amount not exceeding the estimated cost shown in the scheme. The landowner under the provisions of the 1930 Act might require that any sum payable by him should be recovered by means of an annual rate apportioned between the landlord and the tenant. The procedure is clearly laid down in the Act. There are powers of arbitration and if any scheme is submitted it must be laid before this House before it can become law. I understand that the Commissioner for the special areas has in view at the moment schemes in connection with the River Kelvin and the River Clyde. They are not big schemes, I admit, but in view of his interest in them I think it right to ask for this Measure. In connection with the River Clyde the scheme which is known as the Hyndford Bridge Scheme will, it is anticipated, improve the land drainage in that area and he anticipates that it may also materially improve Lampits Farm which is Government property and on which the Commissioner himself hopes to establish an experimental farm.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of what the cost will be?

Sir G. COLLINS: I was coming to that point. In the case of the River Kelvin scheme the total cost excluding compensation will be £27,000 and it is expected to provide employment for about 115 men for 12 months. In the case of the River Clyde scheme the total cost excluding compensation will be£10,000 and it is expected to find work for 120 men for six months.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Who will employ these men? I know that the contractors will do the work but who will be responsible apart from that? It is usually a county council or some other body of that kind. Will the Commissioner be responsible in this case or will it be the county council?

Sir G. COLLINS: Discussions on this matter are still proceeding and it is not quite settled, but I think that probably the scheme will be carried out under the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
I shall be happy to answer any further questions on the Bill, but as I have already said, it simply extends by two years the period of the powers conferred on the Department by the 1930 Act.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It does not alter the powers in any way?

Sir G. COLLINS: There is no alteration. The Bill simply extends for two years the powers which Parliament in 1930 saw fit to grant for five years. The Commissioner for the special areas in Scotland has made a request and it is at his request that I am submitting the Bill. I think that in the very difficult task which the Commissioner has undertaken on behalf of His Majesty's Government he ought to be supported by any immediate and practical step which this House can take to help him in his work.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: I wish to support the Second Reading of this Bill which Sir Arthur Rose has asked for in order to facilitate schemes of land drainage and reclamation now under consideration. I note that in the Civil Estimates for this year there has been set down a sum approaching £500,000 to meet the outlays and general expenses in connection with the work of the Commissioner in Scotland. I rejoice exceedingly that Sir Arthur Rose proposes to spend such a substantial sum on rehabilitating the special areas in Scotland, and I am sure that every Scottish Member will support with the most hearty goodwill this or any other Bill which will facilitate his schemes. But there is one matter which calls for criticism or, at any rate, inquiry. The Memorandum states that the Bill has been introduced on the recommendation of the Commissioner. The original Act of 1930 is due to expire in a month's time. Why has it been left to Sir Arthur Rose to take steps to reprieve that Act, to give it a new lease of life? Further, I should like to know whether it is the case that the benefits of this Measure are not to be extended to any district in Scotland outside the special areas. Sir Arthur Rose, as a result of his investigations, has satisfied himself that schemes can usefully be carried out in Lanarkshire and perhaps elsewhere in the special areas. Are there no other districts in Scotland where arterial drainage is required?
I am not one of those who believe that Scotland is "down and out." Scotland in the past has met with disasters and has many times encountered periods of depression far more acute than that which the present generation is experiencing. But although the situation is improving, there is no gainsaying the fact that things are not altogether well with Scotland. Relatively speaking, as compared with England, Scotland is a distressed area. I have always held the view that there are really two Commissioners in Scotland. There is Sir Arthur Rose, the Commissioner appointed under the 1934 Act for the special areas, but there is another Commissioner who has no statutory title. His jurisdiction is far more extensive, and in some respects his powers are far greater. He owes his position as Commissioner to the fact that he holds the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. He is Commissioner for that distressed area, North Britain. The present holder of the office has gained the good will and regard and complete confidence of everybody in Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh no.

Mr. MILNE: I am not sure that I could say the same thing of his advisers, whoever they may be. When the original Act was passed, it was contemplated that £100,000 could be usefully spent on arterial drainage. The language of the memorandum, which I suppose has been framed by my right hon. Friend's advisers, is not encouraging. It tells us that one scheme is still being carried on, that in connection with the River Annan, and that the net cost will be £1,300. In addition to that, we are told that £1,000 has been spent on general survey work. Has the Scottish Office any new schemes in contemplation, apart from those of Sir Arthur Rose, and has the work of survey been brought to an untimely end? I would like some assurance from the Secretary of State that the Scottish Office is going to prosecute vigorously an exploration of the possibilities of this Act.
I have been looking at the history of the Act in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I see that after the Act was passed there were numerous questions about it in Parliament, but then those questions became fewer and fewer, and finally they ceased altogether. I hope that those
Scottish Members whose constituencies are more especially interested in arterial drainage will not allow the Act to become a dead letter. I would remind them that when Noah was in the ark, he never ceased in his interrogations, but constantly kept asking if the floods were abating, and at last the floods did abate, and the ark rested on dry land. I suppose those hon. Members who asked the questions will say to me, "Ah well, but Noah was not faced with our difficulties. He never had to deal with the Scottish Office." Be that as it may, I would respectfully advise that when this Bill becomes law they will renew their questions, and then at long last perhaps something will be done. I do not want, however, to finish on a note of admonition and censure. This excellent little Measure has been introduced for the primary purpose of facilitating the schemes of Sir Arthur Rose. I shall vote for it with the very greatest pleasure, and I am sure I am expressing the feelings of all of us when I say that we wish all success to Sir Arthur Rose in his gallant adventure.

2.41 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. and learned Member's unlimited praise of the Secretary of State and censure of the officials to pass without comment because we have always said this, that in my time we have never really had a bad Under-Secretary of State, but we have never had a good Secretary of State.

Mr. MILNE: When I used the expression "Scottish Office," I, of course, had not in mind any particular individuals. I regard the Scottish Office as an intellectual abstraction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: An official once asked me who was the best Scottish Secretary, and I said to him, "You should not put it in that way, but you should ask who has been the worst. You should put them all in a lucky bag, and the only way to find out who has been the worst would be to pick them out of the lucky bag, because they are all so bad; they are none of them very good." In connection with Sir Arthur Rose, I was one of his critics, and it is only right to say that I am glad that at least the River Clyde has a drainage scheme, and that there is a drainage scheme also for
the River Kelvin. I presume they would not have been started by the Scottish Office. With all its knowledge, the Scottish Office would never have thought of them if it had not been for Sir Arthur Rose. It is really a remarkable achievement, that he should have found what all the officials could not find. All these great men, all these skilful negotiators, all this great Department would never have found these out but for Sir Arthur Rose, who has succeeded in producing two drainage schemes, one of which, I understand, will employ over 100 men and the other slightly under 100 men. He is to be congratulated on a remarkable achievement in that respect. I must confess that I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) has given Sir Arthur Rose his blessing in this connection, because before Sir Arthur has finished, he will need all the blessings he can get.
As far as this Bill is concerned, I welcome the fact that for once the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State did not blame the Labour Government for anything. Generally speaking, Ministers have ceased to justify themselves in any way at all; their only justification is to mention the faults and failings of previous Secretaries of State, but on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has introduced a Labour Government Measure. I do not want to be taken as wholly in agreement with this Bill, because there was a part of the original Act that I never liked, regarding compensation. However, this Bill is limited to two years, and I understand also that it is, comparatively speaking, limited to particular areas. I understand you are only giving money for the schemes that Sir Arthur Rose adopts, that, in other words, you are prepared only to help schemes within Sir Arthur Rose's jurisdiction; or is this money not confined to his area?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Bill will enable the Department to prepare schemes for the next two years.

Mr. BUCHANAN: All the same, the Department would never have found out these schemes but for Sir Arthur Rose. It is not difficult to find the Clyde, yet you could not find a scheme for the Clyde, and it was the same with the Kelvin. How would the Scottish Office have found out these schemes had it
not been for Sir Arthur Rose? In addition to being in charge of the distressed areas, could he not be put in charge of the agricultural problem? The party with which I am associated will not vote against this Bill. We shall not vote against it because it provides a job for somebody and will make for some good.

Sir G. COLLINS: With regard to the observations of the hon. Member about the Scottish Office, if at any time the Scottish Office fails it is not fair to blame the officials, for the Ministers must take the blame. The Department explored the whole problem of drainage after the 1930 Act, but then came the crisis and the work was slowed down. One of these schemes had been investigated by the Department before, but we are grateful to the special commissioner for urging it upon us.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend by a further period of two years the period during which the powers of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to prepare and settle schemes under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930, may be exercised, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred by the Department during the aforesaid extended period so far as those expenses are not recovered in the manner provided by the said Act of 1930."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir G. Collins.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

ADDITIONAL IMPORT DUTIES (NO. 5) ORDER 1935.

2.47 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1935, dated the 12th day of March, 1935, be annulled."
May I express my gratitude and the gratitude of my colleagues to the Whips of the Government and of the Opposition that arrangements were made whereby this Motion could be discussed during the hours of daylight instead of being taken after 11 o'clock at night, which would have been the ordinary procedure. The power of making treaties is the power of the Crown, and, therefore, in the ordinary way is an administrative act on the part of the Minister. Treaties, therefore, do not automatically come before us, unless, as in this case, it happens to involve legislation, because, strictly speaking, the statutory Order is a form of legislation; or unless, on account of the nature of the treaty, the Opposition happen to table a Vote of Censure; or, in the other case, where by general and voluntary agreement an arrangement is made for discussion. This is one of the cases where the Order has to receive the sanction of the House or, at least, where it must be brought before the House if the Order is challenged. I challenge the Order, not that I wish to defeat it, but in order that the matter may be discussed.
I think that the Polish Agreement, taking all the circumstances into account, is by far the best agreement that has yet been concluded, and I would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend, the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who, I believe, took an active part in the long and difficult negotiations. I am certain it was no easy task to settle that very extensive schedule of duties on British goods entering Poland. It represents a considerable number of concessions, although it is not easy for any of us to interpret their full significance. Nevertheless, I am going to assume from what I have read of it that we have, in fact, obtained a substantial number of concessions. On the other hand, let us realise that Poland, like most other countries, is a party to a considerable number of trade agreements containing the most-favoured-nation clause, and accordingly, every concession that Poland has given us she will presumably extend to every other country in the world. I am one of those who are of the opinion that it is very doubtful if, now we are entering into this kind of trade agreement, it is on balance a good thing for us—and, in fact, for other nations—to continue to be bound by the most-favoured-nation
clause so long as it remains in the unconditional form in which it appears in most treaties. I understand that as a sequel to this agreement there has been entered into an arrangement among the commercial people concerned affecting coal, which will probably have very good results, because it has unfortunately been true that the trade agreements which we have concluded in the Scandinavian countries, whereby we apparently got new markets for our coal, did not work out as well as we thought they would work, because the Polish coal which we pushed out of the Baltic countries was pushed into some other countries.
I hope that the agreement entered into by the various business interests will do something to create more fortunate results than the Baltic trade agreements. In the Polish Agreement we apparently get all our concessions without paying very much for them, because the short schedule of our concessions—or our apparent concessions—preserves with one exception the duties as they are. In fact, we are merely guaranteeing to continue to Poland those advantages which Poland automatically got as a result of the Most Favoured Nation clause under the provisions of our trade agreements with Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the other countries in whose agreements there appeared the same commodities, very largely agricultural, that were covered by our trade agreement with what I call the Baltic countries.
I want to say a few words about carpets. The hon. secretary of the tariff committee of the carpet industry happens to be a constituent of mine, and I have heard from him a good deal of the problems of that industry. I think when a trade agreement is entered into, if that trade agreement is conceivably going to prejudice some other industry, that industry ought to be given an opportunity of expressing their views. I do not say that we have not to sacrifice one industry for the sake of other industries. The Government have a clear right in certain cases to say that from the broad national point of view it is a good thing if a particular industry suffers a little under this agreement because the consequential results as a whole are to the national interest. We accept that position. We
understand that that is the essence of bargaining. But when the carpet industry is made a party to an agreement they should have an opportunity of saying what they think the effect on it would be. I am told that there was no reference at all to the carpet industry, which happens to have a definite tariff committee before this agreement was signed. Throughout I have taken the view that the Board of Trade have made a mistake in carrying through trade agreements without reference to those affected.
That is not the practice of other countries. When the Swedes came over it was by no means the case that they made no reference to their trade commission. The head of their trade commission, Mr. Prytz, had the advantage of being born in London and educated at Dulwich, and he could think and speak in English and Swedish. There was constant contact in the whole of the negotiations between the trade delegation and their industrialists. On the other hand, in this country we appear to have pursued the course that whatever the Government do is done in secret, and the industry have no knowledge of what is done until the document is published. That form of negotiation is a mistake. There is just one purely technical point I want to ask about carpets. On page 34 of the trade Agreement it is said that hand-made carpets, if they are not knotted, are to be treated in a particular manner. In other words, the carpets as specified in the Agreement, which are hand-made carpets, are not to be treated as hand-made carpets for the purpose of our tariff. I should have thought, reading the words on page 34 of the Agreement, that that would have meant that they would have been treated in the ordinary way as machine-made carpets, on which the duty is 30 per cent., but, when I come to read the Treasury Order—if I have understood it aright—instead of treating this class of carpets as machine-made carpets, which is what the Agreement appears to imply, they have been treated as if they were not liable to any additional duty at all, but only liable to the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty.
I do not know whether I am correct in my interpretation, but it certainly appears to me that the Order does not strictly follow the wording of the Agreement, though it is conceivable that- the Order follows what was the intention of
the Agreement. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he replies will clear up that point. The curious thing is that carpets are not a very important matter so far as Poland is concerned. I am told that in 1934 we imported only 1,255 square yards and the value was only £327. I consulted the annual statement of trade in the library in order to find figures for earlier years, but the imports from Poland are so trifling that they do not appear to be separately classified. I am therefore a little surprised that this apparently most unimportant item appears in this Polish Agreement. Again, there may be an explanation, but what we give to Poland we give to the rest of the world. I am wondering how many ingenious people are now busy thinking out how they are going to make carpets which will comply with this Agreement. It is amazing the extent to which human ingenuity is stimulated when you can make something out of it, and, if you can make something out of it by making your carpets in a new way so that they acquire this exemption under the Agreement, I should not be at all surprised if we did not find flowing into us from all sorts of Oriental countries large numbers of handmade carpets which in some mysterious way qualified for the new concession. We want to watch that very carefully.
The new Agreement deals with a number of agricultural items. It follows the Danish arrangement in respect of bacon and ham, and it also provides for a limitation of duties on eggs and butter. These provisions are all reproduced precisely from the Danish Trade Agreement. I am going to suggest that if the Danish Trade Agreement were brought before this House to-day the House would not assent to it. I do not think it would have a single chance. I do not think the innocent people who run the National Farmers Union could be now-induced to give the assent they were induced to give in respect of the Danish Agreement in the summer of 1933, and I do not think my right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture—

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is going to raise an agreement other than the Polish Agreement, I take it that, in reply, it would be possible for me to deal with the various trade agreements in some detail.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Gentleman was using that as an illustration, but he must not go too far.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I realise the difficulty. May I put it this way. The Danish Trade Agreement runs until 20th June, 1936, and under that Agreement, through the most favoured nation clause, Poland will in fact get its advantages, even, if this Agreement is not made; but, if this Agreement is made and ratified, it will then run on to 31st December, 1936, and on acceptance of the most favoured nation clause what we give to Poland under this Agreement will be extended to Denmark for six months and 10 days longer than would otherwise be the case. That is a matter of some substance. It is not only under this Agreement. There are a number of other trade agreements all expiring on or before 31st December, 1936, providing the necessary six months' notice is given prior to that date. We have got to think this out. We are definitely tied up. I rejoiced beyond measure when I read that in Liverpool the other day the Lord President of the Council addressing the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce expressed the view that he, and I presume the Government, has come to the conclusion that tariffs were better than quotas. I rejoiced, but they can only give effect to that policy if they can persuade some 13 foreign countries by separate agreement to modify the terms of the existing agreements. If we ratify the Polish Trade Agreement, there is still one other country to be converted. In other words, we are at this moment doing something which makes it more difficult to give effect to the policy the Lord President of the Council declared only on Monday at Liverpool.
Therefore, this Debate is of some significance. Actually, I rejoice that my hon. and gallant Friend has entered into an Agreement which does not bind us for a longer period than any of the others. On the other hand, if we were to denounce the Most Favoured Nation Clause in our Treaties, which we could do, we should be liberated in respect of all the world except those countries with which we have specific trade agreements, and liberated also in respect of Poland, but, on the other hand, if we make this Agreement we are bound to Poland to 31st December, 1936. There are a great many other things that I should like to say,
but I know how unfair it would be unduly to trespass further on the time of the House.

3.5 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Motion.
It is a public service to bring this Agreement to the notice of the House, in order that we may discuss it and understand the effect it may have on various branches of industry here. My hon. Friend suggested that the industries which have been made the subject of bargaining in this Agreement ought to have been consulted before-hand. We, shall be told, no doubt, that the agricultural industry, which has, as usual, been made the chief bargaining factor—I see here references to butter, eggs, poultry, beet-sugar and other agricultural produce—was consulted, because the Ministry of Agriculture approve of the Agreement; but when I read through the Third Schedule and see that most of it refers to forestry—logs of pine, wooden telegraph poles and so forth—I wonder whether the Board of Trade have consulted the timber industry in this country. Are they aware that within the last month a marketing organisation has been formed in the timber industry, with the growers of timber on the one side and the merchants on the other and the Forestry Commissioners forming the coping stone, as it were, of that organisation. The Commissioners are giving money, and the growers and the merchants are also subscribing their share towards this experiment to see whether a better marketing organisation cannot be brought into existence.
This agreement will not help the forestry industry to organise itself and it is very unfortunate both for agriculture and for forestry that it should come along at this particular moment. I have no doubt that the country gets a substantial quid pro quo, but at least those industries which have to pay for all these agreements—agriculture and forestry—ought to have an opportunity of hearing that their interests were considered when the bargain was being made. I notice on page 36 of the Memorandum the statement:
In any discussions that may take place with foreign supplying countries with a view to voluntary co-operation they will do '"hat they can to ensure that due consideration
is given to the special position of the export trade of the Polish Customs Territory in agricultural produce generally in view of its very recent development.
I should have thought it was particularly unfortunate that at a moment when we have a glut of our own agricultural produce in the markets the recently developed agriculture of Poland should have an opportunity of adding to that glut. Like my hon. Friend, I do not want to weary the House with details of this agreement, but I want the Government to realise plainly that the agricultural industry—as, no doubt, will the forestry industry also when they understand it—feel that they have been unfairly used, not only in this Agreement, but in the Danish and other Agreements which went before.
What is the policy of the Government? They say, "We know that agriculture has been 'done in' here, and so we will give it a subsidy." Agriculture does not want the subsidy. Agriculturists are getting tired of subsidies, because they know that subsidies make them unpopular with the other industries and with the taxpayers. We are doing a great deal of harm to agriculture by "fobbing it off" with a subsidy every time we want to do something to help other industries under trade agreements. It is time the Government looked into this problem. If they want to deal with unemployment by settling people on the land they must make the agricultural industry and the forestry industry able to stand on their own legs, with the same form of protection as is given to iron and steel and other industries. Part IV of this particular Agreement, of course, relates to shipping, which, we know, is a very depressed industry. Why should other industries be favoured at the expense of the agricultural and forestry industries, as usual? I hope that the Board of Trade will give us some satisfaction by explaining.

3.11 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Like the hon. Member who moved the Motion, it is not our intention on this side of the House to vote against the Agreement or to attempt to defeat it. I feel sure that the House will join in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member who negotiated it, after a very long and strenuous time. He must realise now that, notwithstanding that he had the weapon of tariffs to
bring about the Agreement, it is not an easy matter to enter into agreements with other countries. The discussion on this Agreement commenced as far back as June of last year and continued for seven or eight months. The articles upon which it was negotiated cover 22 pages of the Agreement, and one would expect to find that they represented a very considerable sum in value, but the total imports into Poland from this country last year amounted to less than £3,000,000. I do not for one moment minimise the importance of that sum, but it is possible to try to regard it as very much more important than it really is. It must also be remembered that there is a heavy trade balance against us and in favour of Poland, as heavy as in the case of almost any other country with whom we trade. I think there are 20 foreign countries taking from us goods of more value than does Poland.
While a good deal of importance is to be given to the Agreement, I do not think the importance ought to be overestimated. Some of our trade competitors are very much more favourably treated than we are, in trade with Poland. I especially refer to America. As is customary in all such agreements, the agriculturists complain that the Government give too many concessions and we, representing some of the coal districts of the country, complain that not as much has been done for the coal industry in them as should have been done. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) referred to the fact that a commercial agreement was negotiated between representatives of the coal industry in this country and of the coal industry of Poland. Those negotiations were not entered into in any way under the control of the Government, but I have no doubt that the Government gave them their blessing. We welcome also that agreement.
It is not my intention to go fully into the matter this afternoon. The difficulty has been to ascertain what was really contained in that commercial agreement. I understand that the Polish coal-owners have agreed that there shall be a certain limitation of exports, but I think the most important part of the agreement is the attempt to arrive at the control of prices, and I hope that
that will be the beginning of negotiations between the coalowners of this country and the representatives of the coal industry in other countries, or between the Governments of this and other countries, so that we may have an international agreement dealing with the export of this very important commodity. It is true that certain advantages were given to the coal industry in the Scandinavian agreement, but, as the hon. Member for South Croydon rightly said, while we pushed Polish coal out of some markets, the Polish coal has pushed Welsh coal, very largely, out of other markets. Italy was a very important market of ours, and South Wales especially has suffered grievously as a result of the very heavily subsidised Polish coal which has been imported into that country.
It should be recognised that, while there is some complaint about the concessions which have been given on the import of certain manufactured goods into this country, it is true to say that such imports of manufactured goods are almost infinitesimal. They consist almost entirely of bacon, ham and timber, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. Taking the position last year, of the £7,000,000 worth of goods imported into this country, £6,250,000 represented bacon, ham, eggs, butter and timber. It must be remembered, however, that this agreement provides for a limited quota of these agricultural goods, and the agricultural industry has that control over the import of bacon and eggs. A very interesting story could be told about the import of bacon into this country, for in 1934 we paid almost as much for 7,000,000 cwts. of bacon as we paid for 11,000,000 cwts. of bacon in 1932 as a result of this policy. It is not, however, for me to deal with that matter this afternoon. All I would say is that we certainly shall not oppose the Agreement. I think the Government have entered into these negotiations in a proper spirit, and some concessions have been given; but at the same time, in my opinion, the futility has been proved of relying almost entirely upon the tariff weapon to bring about trade agreements between this and other countries.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. E. YOUNG: It seems extraordinary that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) should have framed this Motion for the purpose of expressing, apparently, a loss of confidence in the policy of this country regarding the tariff system generally towards its various neighbours. This Agreement has not been ratified. The Government and the Polish representatives held no fewer than 140 meetings to arrive at the Agreement, and if the agreement runs its full course, it will only run for about a year and a half. Yet, before the Agreement is really ratified, the hon. Member is suggesting that it should be scrapped, and, by implication, that a straight tariff system should be set up in its place.
I do not think much of the argument with regard to carpets; it seems rather small and puny; but I attach more significance to the agricultural statements of the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion. In this House, on several occasions recently, Fridays have been given up to the farmers, and the farmers have, I think, secured a lot of advantage from the debates which have been held on Friday afternoons. The farmers are not satisfied at present. The hon. Member on the opposite side of the House suggests that we are still importing foreign foodstuffs in greater quantities than they ought to be imported. Therefore, even if you use these agreements as a negotiating weapon and method to persuade other people to surrender a little more, it does not satisfy protectionists who are protectionists pure and simple.
Protection to-day has so many names, but one would have thought, in examining this Agreement, which, we all agree, is the best of its kind the Government have yet made, that at least protectionists would have been prepared to have given this new negotiating weapon a trial when one realises that the temporary arrangement was made about a fortnight ago, the condition being that the Government could withdraw if they liked or that it could run for the whole period, which is only a year and a half. Surely not very much danger could be done in that time. The trouble is that what we may call the reciprocal arrangements which follow agreements of this kind have never been fully accepted by the
protectionist party. It is not very long ago that we used to be told that a tariff would at least, whatever else it did not do, bring in revenue, that if goods went out of the country revenue would come, and that if goods were kept out and no revenue was forthcoming from abroad we should have more work at home. There are signs that the Government has as little belief in protection as hon. Friends have on this side of the House. The predictions which we have always made are working out. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but they are.
It used to be said, at the beginning of the protectionist campaign in pre-war days, that all they wanted was a little tariff for a start, and I believe that the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain himself would shiver in his grave if he could hear these proposals now. It used to be said that if we had a small tariff weapon and brandished it in the face of our competitors overseas they would speedily come to heel and tumble over each other to make commercial arrangements with us, and that most of our industrial problems would be settled by that process. These protectionists, having been started on their way, are now yelping round the heels of the leaders of the Government and saying, "The weapon you are using is no use. You are not hitting these competitors of ours nearly as hard as you might hit them. Give us a bigger weapon."
We on these benches are standing by in these days and smiling. We are going to see the policy which we have advocated and for which perhaps we have lost a good deal of the credit. At the present moment we are not inclined to support the supporters of the Government who are yelping at their leaders to scrap this Agreement over which so much public money and time has been spent, and in regard to which 140 meetings have been held, before it has been given a chance. If it runs until the end of next year, surely it will not have had too long a run to demonstrate the validity or otherwise of this bartering weapon, of which the Minister, a short time ago, was very proud. We do not think that it will be a wise policy for the Government to surrender to the blandishments of the supporters who sit behind them who would denounce this Treaty and in its
place set up a tariff policy which they could continually press to be increased until we had a protectionist system doing even more damage to the country than is being done at the present time. I hope the Minister will not surrender to the renegade members—I use the word in no offensive sense—of his party, who are not willing that the policy which they supported a short time ago should continue.

Brigadier-General BROWN: We have not asked the Government to denounce the Treaty, but only to explain in detail what it means.

Mr. YOUNG: If hon. Members do not wish to denounce the Treaty, why are we having the debate? The details are set out very comprehensively.

Brigadier-General BROWN: We do not want to be accused of asking the Government to tear up the Treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Mr. H. Williams), who moved the Motion said that he did so for the purpose of discussion.

Mr. YOUNG: The terms of the Motion are:
That the additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1935, dated the 12th day of March, 1935, be and hereby is annulled.
It is a Treaty which has only been framed about a fortnight and if it runs to its full length it can only be for a year and a half. The Government have the power to withdraw the Treaty inasmuch as it has not yet been ratified, but they wish that it should proceed to its full course of a year and a half, when it will end unless it is re-ratified. Surely, the Government ought to have an opportunity of demonstrating the value of this bargaining weapon, of which they have been so proud, but others who have supported the Government in the making of these agreements are moving that the Agreement be annulled.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member suggests that we have supported the Government on this and other agreements. I would remind him that when the first Agreement with Germany was made some of us opposed it very vigorously because we did not agree with the methods adopted.

Mr. YOUNG: If the hon. Members opposite had throughout opposed the policy of the Government in regard to the making of these agreements they would be perfectly consistent in taking up their attitude to-day, but one would have thought that during the process of time while the 140 meetings were taking place between representatives of the Government and Poland, we should have heard a good deal more protest in the meantime from them. It will be interesting to see whether the supporters of the Government are willing to follow the hon. Member for South Croydon into the Lobby in his effort to obtain the annulment of the Agreement. We believe that this is the best Agreement that has been made and that it should be given a chance and we shall support the Government against their more perfervid Protectionist supporters, who believe in Protection but not in this particular form of Protection which the Government have brought forward in this Agreement with Poland.

3.29 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member opposite seems to be entirely unaware of the custom by which a Motion to negative an agreement is put forward in order to have discussion and to elicit information. The hon. Member who moved the Motion made it quite clear that it was not his intention to annul the Treaty, but merely to draw attention to certain points in it. All who have spoken have congratulated my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade on the great and I think in many respects the most successful efforts that he has made in connection with this Treaty. I should like in particular to congratulate him on certain features in the Agreement which bear upon the development of our Colonial Empire.
There are three features in particular which are very valuable precedents in this Treaty and in one or two of the latest Treaties. The first is that we include a clause by which tariff favours are secured for the products of the Colonial Empire. Sisal, palm oil and certain other Colonial products get a definitely favourable rate of entry into the Polish market. Further, in another clause it is provided that in estimating the balance of trade as between Poland and this country, Polish imports from
the Colonial Empire are reckoned together with United Kingdom imports, which has undoubtedly given to Poland an inducement to buy from British Colonies rather than from the world outside. Thirdly, in Article 11, the definition of "foreign country" has been so worded as to exclude all mandated territories. In that way we are getting rid of that rather absurd anomaly in respect of Palestine. This, no doubt, will be embodied in all future agreements until we can gradually get in this respect a better situation.
There are, however, certain aspects of this Agreement and of others about which, I think, we are bound to say a word or two of criticism. One is the habit—because it is becoming a habit—of giving concessions with reference to some British industry without consulting that industry. That does put the producer for the home market and the exporter on an entirely different footing. The producer for the home market cannot secure favourable conditions in this market except as the result of a preliminary inquiry before the Import Duties Advisory Committee—an inquiry in which all who have objections to state have the opportunity of stating those objections—an inquiry in which the point of view of the consumer as well as that of the producer is carefully considered. On the other hand, an export industry can, apparently, go to the Board of Trade, and by representing the importance—no doubt genuine importance—of its industry, secure the abrogation of whole or part of the protection given to another industry, after much inquiry with meticulous fairness. That seems to me to be based on prejudice in favour of an export industry as against the home industry.
After all, from the point of view of the employment of our people, it is no more important to sell the same volume of goods abroad than to sell it at home. The thing is to secure employment and production, and it is on that subject, above all others, that we want to get a re-orientation of the point of view. The whole conception of the last century was that the only trade that mattered was the export trade. It is not so. Export trade, except in so far as it is required to secure the essential raw materials and foodstuffs which we cannot produce, is in no sense preferable to the home trade, and, in so
far as it is less secure, it is less to be desired.
There is also another point, and that is that there is no proper correlation between the functions of the Board of Trade in making these treaties and the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the proper level at which duties should be imposed. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, by its very terms, is precluded from having what I may call a bargaining margin. It imposes just that amount of duty which is desirable in the interests of the home industry. If that conclusion be correct there is really no advantage in lowering a duty in order to displace certain workers and to give certain other people a little more work. If we are going to use a tariff for bargaining purposes—we are all agreed that that is one very useful way—we ought to have something like a margin to spare which we can give away and still leave the necessary element of protection, or else we should confine bargaining to mere threatening to impose higher duties unless we get concessions.
Lastly, I want to say something in support of my hon Friend regarding the most-favoured-nation Clause. It may be that this little concession in connection with carpets will open the door to a large inrush of foreign carpets from all sorts of new sources. On the other hand it may not. But it is the principle of the most-favoured-nation Clause that really stands in the way of satisfactory arrangements of all sorts. Who would have thought that the concession on cheap jewellery made in the German Treaty two years ago was going to flood this country with effigies of Their Majesties the King and Queen on Jubilee medals, and not only from the country with which we made that agreement but from other countries? We do not know what we may get under these concessions. We may be giving far more than we ever secure. Conversely what security have -we, when we have got a large list of tariff reductions in another country, that those reductions will inure to our benefit rather than to that of our competitors?
I have looked through the long list here, and there are items which, even under the most-favoured-nation conditions, we shall do well under, such, for instance, as herrings. When you come to textiles and other articles, while we may benefit under the reduction
of the Polish duty, it may be that Germany, or Belgium, which is now coming off the gold standard, or Japan, will benefit. Surely the time has come when, if we are to secure advantages to this country at bargaining, in a world in which the whole of the old Free Trade traditions have gone, we ought to get rid of the most-favoured-nation Clause and get definite agreement and give concessions in return for definite concessions.

3.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I recognise that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was at pains at the start to say that he had no desire that it should be accepted, for the very good reason that he recognised that there is a very considerable value in this agreement. So far as tariff reductions are concerned, for one tariff reduction that we are making we are securing 340 from the Polish Government. My hon. Friend will agree that the bargain that we have made, in so far as it relates to tariff rates, undoubtedly is a good one. Some doubt was expressed as to the meaning of the concession in relation to a special kind of carpets, kilims. So far as I can ascertain the total value of kilims that came to this country from Poland in 1933 was £34 sterling. Practically no kilims or rugs of this nature came from any other source at all. My hon. Friend expressed anxiety lest the change in the tariff might mean that from all parts of the Orient carpets of this type may now come flooding in, but I can assure him that that apprehension is not entertained by those who have been studying the question. In any case the effect of the order we have made is to remove these kilims, or rugs, from the tariff applicable to hand-made carpets and place them on the tariff applicable to machine-made carpets. But the tariff applicable to machine-made carpets is not a consolidated rate, and in the event of increased competition in these carpets it can, by an application to the Advisory Committee, be altered. I feel that as far as any criticism of this agreement is directed to the concession about carpets the hon. Member must preserve a sense of proportion. The carpet industry in this matter is in no way endangered. The effect of the British tariff on the carpet industry has shown how beneficial it can be to an industry, but as this was a matter on which Poland showed some special
interest we felt able to place this type of carpet from the hand made list to the machine made list.
Before I deal with the Agreement itself I should like to reply to one or two observations which have been made by hon. Members. They have referred to the effect on the Agreement of the most-favoured-nation clause. I fear that if I were to enter upon a discussion as to the effect of the most-favoured-nation clause in our commercial relations the question might be so widened that I should hardly be able to deal with the Agreement. Yet I feel that I must re-state the Government's attitude towards the most-favoured-nation clause. We consider that the right to most-favourednation treatment in our market must be conditional on countries with which we trade giving us fair treatment in their own markets, and we are not prepared, unconditionally, to grant most-favourednation treatment to countries which do not give us fair treatment. But that does not suggest that we should embark on a wholesale denunciation of those treaties which contain such a clause, as has been suggested by some hon. Members. I would ask them to consider the degree of uncertainty and disturbance which that would cause. Our trade is cast over a wide area, and it is of great importance to our traders to know that in no country with which we have such an arrangement will they suffer discrimination. Moreover, the most-favoured-nation clause covers them not only against tariff discrimination but also against discrimination in respect of quotas and restrictions. While we are not bound to the use of the most-favoured-nation clause, and shall not hesitate to refuse most-favoured-nation treatment to countries which treat us unfairly, I must emphasise that a widespread denunciation of treaties which contain this clause would cause much disturbance and grievous damage to our commerce at the present time. It is sometimes forgotten that we not only give but receive most-favoured-nation rights as well.
Passing to the agreement itself, I feel bound, in the first place, to answer some observations made by hon. Members with regard to agriculture. The hon. Member who moved the motion said quite plainly and fairly that he recognises that in point of fact we are not giving Poland,
in agricultural matters, any more than she is getting through her most-favoured-nation rights. That is correct. Had we failed to reach an agreement with Poland she would have lost her (most-favoured-nation rights and there would have been disturbance of our trade with Poland but she has handsomely qualified for a retention of most-favoured-nation rights in the Agreement she has given. As regards the period of the Agreement, the hon. Member was not correct in saying that, as the Danish Agreement runs out in the summer of 1936 and this Agreement was for a further six months, we were necessarily tied in these agricultural matters for six months longer. There are in existence treaties which run for the very period of this Polish Agreement so that our agricultural policy is tied for no longer period than that to which our existing engagements would hold us in any case.
My hon. Friend has said that he is not happy about the quantitative method of regulating agricultural supplies. I am bound to say that that method was chosen at the outset, not out of any desire to be soft-hearted to particular supplying countries, but deliberately in order to have more accurate control of the supplies to" this country while the home trade was being reorganised. We have not said that it is necessarily our policy for all time. We shall examine it as we go along. I cannot say more than that today. The policy is always under examination and this agreement in no way ties us any further than our present engagements in that matter. As hon Members who represent agricultural constituencies know, there has been a very marked measure of protection for a number of agricultural products within the scope of these Agreements and we shall not turn back on the policy on which we have embarked of assisting our agriculture by such measures of protection as we can reasonably apply to it.
To turn to the other side of the Agreement, I should like to enumerate some of the provisions which affect British trade with Poland. The Polish Government have accorded tariff reductions on no less than 340 rates of duty in the Polish Tariff. In the schedule 450 rates of duty have been fixed, of which 340 are actual reductions. To give the House a better view of what
that means in regard to trade, I would like to add that in 1933 there was a new Polish tariff. That revised Polish tariff, in general, increased the duties in that country and this fact was kept fully in mind in our negotiations. It is estimated that about 60 per cent. of the reduced rates of duty provided for in the tariff schedule to this Agreement are on a level lower than those in force in 1930, or three years before the higher rates of duty were put on, and about 40 to 50 per cent. of our trade with Poland in, the year 1930 now enjoys lower rates of duty than the rates in force in that year. I would stress that point to the hon. Member who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and expressed the view that the tariff weapon was not proving quite so effective as we had hoped. The result which I have mentioned has been achieved directly as a result of our negotiations and I know of no other way in which we could have secured a reduction of the Polish rates of duty than that of negotiating with the tariff weapon. It will be remembered that the President of the Board of Trade in the late Government made strenuous efforts to secure a tariff truce but, with the best will in the world and the best efforts which he could make, he was not able to secure a reduction or even a stabilisation of any of the rates of duty. In this one Agreement we have secured reductions of duty on over 340 tariff rates, and I suggest that that is proof that, rightly used, the tariff can be a lever to reduce the tariffs in other countries.

Sir BASIL PETO: Can any hon. and gallant Friend tell us about the mostfavoured-nation clause in this connection?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In so far as Poland has most-favoured-nation treaties with other countries—and there are some with which she has not—these rates of duty will be applicable to them also, and I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that point, because in the examination of the tariffs and during our negotiations, in which we were fully in consultation with our industries concerned, we chose those items in which we believed that we would have a good chance to compete.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell me—

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: This is a very complicated question, and I must ask to be allowed to develop my argument. Let me give some examples of rates of duty which have been secured. The most important reductions of duty are those upon herrings, textile goods, and motor cars, also on various classes of machinery and chemicals not made in Poland. Nobody will deny that the herring industry is one of which we have heard a good deal in the last few years and one which we should make every effort to assist. The Polish Market is valuable for herrings, but we have been handicapped by the high rate of duty on the very type of herring which we exported. We find that the duty on fresh herring imported by sea is reduced by half, from 2 zlotys to 1 zloty per 100 kilograms. As regards salt herring, the duty is again halved on the smaller herring, the type we send, from 24 zlotys per barrel to 12 zlotys. I understand that already these reductions are proving very beneficial to the herring industry of this country. If any hon. Member could tell me how by any other means we could have halved the duty on herring in Poland, I should be glad, because I contend that it could only have been brought about by these negotiations.
With regard to textile goods, the Polish duties on cotton yarns over No. 29 count, as they are called, are reduced by varying amounts, the largest reductions being for the finer counts. The duties on various classes of cotton piece goods are also reduced, and the reductions are of varying amounts—in the case of some of the wide prints amounting to over 40 per cent. I think that is a very considerable reduction to have achieved in the tariffs on cotton piece goods. The negotiations in regard to cotton piece goods were greatly facilitated by the visit to Poland of a delegation from the Lancashire industry. We were able to secure a visit to Poland of a representative delegation from Lancashire, which very much helped us in our negotiations, and we were able to get for them some valuable reductions of duty. The negotiations for the Polish agreement were at the outset preceded by a mission to Poland, which went out under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir E. Ramsden), who conducted a mission to Warsaw before the negotiations commenced,
accompanied by representatives of several important British industries. In my experience during the negotiations I found that the value of that mission, which surveyed the ground beforehand, was considerable, and that it enabled us to get some valuable concessions. I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for North Bradford in that regard.
When it comes to woollen goods, reductions are made in the duties on worsted yarns, and the duties on worsted cloth are reduced by from 6 to 15 per cent. and a large reduction of about 50 per cent. has been obtained for worsted cloths with woollen warp or weft. Coming to motor cars, the duties in Poland on passenger motor cars of a cylinder capacity not exceeding 2,300 c.c. and on all commercial chassis were very considerably reduced. Prior to the trade agreement the Polish duties on motor cars were practically prohibitive, and it was almost impossible to sell motor cars in Poland. I understand that the United Kingdom industry is of the opinion that the new duties will give a fair chance to enable them to compete in the Polish market. There are reduced duties granted for certain classes of machinery. An arrangement has been made for the importation at only 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the second column duties in the Polish tariff of numerous classes of textile, agricultural, metal-working, woodworking, and electrical machinery, not made in Poland. Other reductions include glacé kid leather, sewing machines, whisky and beer, various kinds of cycle parts, circular saws, gramophones, records, and a number of other items, all of which we are qualified to supply at competitive prices now that the tariff is reduced to enable us to compete. In addition to the reductions in duty, there were consolidations of duty at levels at which we can compete.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) mentioned an important feature of the Agreement relating to Colonial trade. There has been much complaint as regards the compensation trade regulations in Poland, which have affected this trade, and under the Trade Agreement we have secured exemption of United Kingdom and Colonial goods from the application of the compensation trade arrangements.
It was recognised that the balance of trade as between Poland and this country, including her balance of trade with the Colonies, was so considerably in her favour that the enforcement of the arrangements was hardly fair. So we asked that imports from the Colonies should not be required to have a compensating export from Poland. This arrangement will be of great benefit to those of our Colonies which are trading with Poland.
With regard to purchasing arrangements, as in the case of other agreements negotiated lately, we have secured a number of valuable purchasing arrangements between the supply organisations in this country and purchasing organisations in Poland. These cover cotton yarns, wool tops, textile machinery, agricultural and dairy machinery, leather, chemicals, jute, and also machinery and saws for the Polish woodworking industry. These are actually undertakings by the purchasing organisations of Poland to purchase supplies from this country. There are similar undertakings in several of the Scandinavian agreements which are securing direct trade to the tune of many hundred of thousands of pounds for this country, and such an arrangement will help us in our trade with Poland. With regard to shipping, we have for years been in trouble with Poland in regard to the treatment of our ships. This agreement gives our shipping a fair chance, not only with the emigration trade, but also with the direct liner trade between this country and Poland. The Agreement has taken account of the special difficulties of the British shipping lines in their dealings with Poland, and has placed them on a much more equitable basis. Time has been too short to refer to all the details of the Agreement, which took more than a hundred meetings to complete, but I have been able to let the House know some measure of its value.

Mr. HASLAM: I greatly regret that the Debate has been so curtailed owing to lack of time, but I should like to say that the advantages to the trade of this country which have been enumerated have all been gained at the expense of British agriculture.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of my hon. and gallant Friend's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at One Minute before Four o'Clock until Monday next, 1st April.